Subaru barrels through recession

[MikeNH]

I could give 2 shits about the marginal amount of weight added by window frames or traditions. As for it being the mark of a higher end car- who says? I've seen frameless windows on convertibles but I can't think of any other modern hardtop that uses them. As for the better looks, whatever. I don't think I've ever looked at a car and thought "My, those window frames are thick and make the windows look small." Nor do I feel they pose a risk for entrapment after a collision- if that were true then more automakers would use the frameless design. As for the wind noise argument- if you're going to try and claim that the old style offers as good a seal as the framed windows then I am totally wasting my time discussing this with you.

[MJ in PA]

I've seen frameless windows on convertibles but I can't think of any other modern hardtop that uses them.

 

There are a handful - VW CC is one that comes to mind.

[The B4]

That adds weight, and visual thickness to the roof. The last place you want to add weight for good CG, and that needs no help to look visually thick, and to make the windows look disproportionately small.

 

With Subaru moving the engine lower offsets the negligible weight from window frames. Increased roof height and and ground clearance would play a bigger role. All of the framed windowed Subaru's have visually larger windows and greenhouses than the models they replaced. (Tribeca obviously excluded)

 

On top of that... the 2010 Legacy has the same CG as the car it replaces

 

http://i46.tinypic.com/2u7nl01.png

 

 

With a window frame, you have to have the framework on the door, and the seals for the glass in the frame, and the frame to the body, and the tolerance gaps between the window frame and the roof structure.

 

With frameless doors, the doors are lighter, (and mine seem fine... I don't get the "tinny sound with the glass down" argument...)

 

The glass seals stay on the roof, and there are many fewer seals needed, and less clearance gaps, a thinner over-all B-pillar structure, and all the strength is retained in the B-pillar and the roof arch from the A-pillar to the C-pillar, which are part of the chassis structure, not just holding the side window glass in place.

 

The same given strength rating requires less over-all space on the car, with frameless glass.

 

 

 

This is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY over generalized. Subarus are still designed with the chassis as the roll cage.You are completely disregarding the usage of higher amounts of high tensile strength steel... which... of course... Subaru is using more of.

 

On top of that... the 2010 Legacy with frames has LESS intrusion than the previous generation

 

NHTSA Side Impact results (lower is better):

 

2010

Head Injury Criterion (HIC) Front:119 Rear:393

Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI) Front:36 Rear:49

 

2007

Head Injury Criterion (HIC) Front:141 Rear:472

Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI) Front:48 Rear:56

 

 

 

AND if the door opening is impacted, the window frame doesn't get crimped into the bodywork, effectively trapping the door closed, in an accident. The glass shatters either way... but a frameless door is more likely to be able to be opened, than one with a mangled window frame twisted into interference with the car's structure.

The point is to NOT have the doors open in a severe enough accident. A door that is more likely to open is more likely to come open from the force of the accident and increases the chance that a passenger be ejected.

 

Subaru's frameless or no have required heavy duty equipment to cut survivors from cars strictly because of how they are designed

 

http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/5219/picture0999se.jpg

 

But no... They made the roofs HIGH, THICK, and bulky looking, with lots of thick window framing. Wonderful.

Subaru having frames on the windows has nothing to do with the height of the roof. There are plenty of low slung cars with framed windows. And the thickness was there with the previous generation... it was just inside the glass instead of being visible out side of the glass. More bulkier than frameless?... yes... but luckily the vast majority of cars on the road have framed windows, so it really doesn't make the look any different than what you'd find on a BMW 3 series.

 

 

Where am I so WRONG?

So Subaru has made the car safer AND quieter with framed windows while keeping weight and and the center of gravity in check. The WRX is framed, larger, AND lighter than the GD...

 

So Subaru retains the reinforced steel structure, increases rigidity, increases safety, lowers wind noise, uses higher amounts of stronger exotic steel, and keeps weight in check... hmmm... your generalities are once again trumped by reality.

 

8 layers of steel and rebar are now joined by better materials... who'd have thunk that advancements in engineering would make frames possible?

[The B4]

P.S. The 2010 Legacy also has the same exact chance of rollover as the outgoing model (10%)... top hat friendly design and all.

[Ridgeracer]

Minor observation with the framed doors on the 2010 LGT. I actually like how quiet they close compared to mines.

[IwannaSportSedan]

With Subaru moving the engine lower offsets the negligible weight from window frames. Increased roof height and and ground clearance would play a bigger role. All of the framed windowed Subaru's have visually larger windows and greenhouses than the models they replaced. (Tribeca obviously excluded)

 

On top of that... the 2010 Legacy has the same CG as the car it replaces

 

http://i46.tinypic.com/2u7nl01.png

 

Making the car larger, especially taller keeps the windows big, but hurts aero drag, and all else equal, raises CG.

 

But all else isn't equal... they added mass low, in the engine cradle, to cancel out... Adding at point b to cancel out adding at point A is still ADDING.

 

They could have left the additional mass out. Maybe then they wouldn't have had to de-content the car to keep the weight and cost in check. Adding the engine cradle, while keeping the roof at a moderate, appropriate height, with only the mass of steel that is needed, not needless excess, would keep the weight in check, and LOWER the CG, which would be BETTER, and help keep the chassis even more stable, than more material high in the car's taller than necessary roof.

 

 

This is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY over generalized. Subarus are still designed with the chassis as the roll cage.You are completely disregarding the usage of higher amounts of high tensile strength steel... which... of course... Subaru is using more of.

 

I never said at the roll structure wasn't integrated into the roof, I said that it had to accomidate more space for the window frames, and thus take up more space.

 

On top of that... the 2010 Legacy with frames has LESS intrusion than the previous generation

 

NHTSA Side Impact results (lower is better):

 

2010

Head Injury Criterion (HIC) Front:119 Rear:393

Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI) Front:36 Rear:49

 

2007

Head Injury Criterion (HIC) Front:141 Rear:472

Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI) Front:48 Rear:56

 

The point is to NOT have the doors open in a severe enough accident. A door that is more likely to open is more likely to come open from the force of the accident and increases the chance that a passenger be ejected.

 

That is not what I said, so don't mis-represent. I never said that I wanted the doors to fly open in an accident, and you present no data to say that the frameless doors are more likely to fly open.

 

A framed window does not latch to the car's body. The only latch to the body is lower on the door, and is independent of whether or not the window is framed or not. You cannot extrapolate that a door without a window frame is any more likely to fly open in an accident.

 

I said I don't want to be trapped in my car, if the window frame gets wadded up, and blocks the door closed, which is a different condition, and is a physical possibility.

 

Subaru's frameless or no have required heavy duty equipment to cut survivors from cars strictly because of how they are designed

 

http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/5219/picture0999se.jpg

 

I know that. I've sent that very article to my father, who is a fire chief, and an instructor. Years ago, when that was first published. That is not news, and it applied to previous frameless Subarus.

 

But a frameless door doesn't get wedged shut if the roof gets crumpled. A window frame might.

 

There may be instances when a frameless door can be opened and escaped, where a window-frame crumpled into interference with the roof or pillars, might not allow the door to be opened, and one would be trapped inside until the rescue workers arrived and got the jaws and saws set up... whether the window frames are easy to cut or hard to cut. I'd rather they not barricade me in in the first place, if I have the choice. Not the end of the world, but it is a point to mention and consider.

 

If you are trapped otherwise by the dash or something, you may need the jaws anyway, and they might have to cut through the roof first, to clear out enough to get closer to the trapped person.

 

If the window frame might be the only pinched obstacle, I am just fine without it.

 

Subaru having frames on the windows has nothing to do with the height of the roof. There are plenty of low slung cars with framed windows. And the thickness was there with the previous generation... it was just inside the glass instead of being visible out side of the glass. More bulkier than frameless?... yes... but luckily the vast majority of cars on the road have framed windows, so it really doesn't make the look any different than what you'd find on a BMW 3 series.

 

Yes, it does. The only car I have seen that doesn't add the dimensions of the window frame into the door portal thickness, and thus the thickness at the sides of the roof... is the SVX. Because the window frames are glassed over, and the window frames meet and overlap the side of the roof structure, the roof structure doesn't wrap over the window frame. the window wraps over the frame, and the roof remains quite low. Thankfully.

 

So Subaru has made the car safer AND quieter with framed windows while keeping weight and and the center of gravity in check. The WRX is framed, larger, AND lighter than the GD...

 

AND IT LOOKS LIKE QUASIMODO, the hunchback of the auto industry.

 

So Subaru retains the reinforced steel structure, increases rigidity, increases safety, lowers wind noise, uses higher amounts of stronger exotic steel, and keeps weight in check... hmmm... your generalities are once again trumped by reality.

 

8 layers of steel and rebar are now joined by better materials... who'd have thunk that advancements in engineering would make frames possible?

 

There is nothing to say that they couldn't have made those advancements, and kept the frameless windows, and the lighter doors, and the more compact space for the side roof rails, with the same strength advantages.

 

And possibly have kept a nicer, lower, more aerodynamic roofline, kept all the strength with less material (no window frame material needed) with thus less weight, and space)

 

More exotic steel adds weight and cost, so I would hope that they are only using as much as they need to meet their exemplary safety rating, and no more than that.

 

Quieter windows are as simple as better seals, and the window movement mechanism that other frameless cars have to seal their windows.

 

You are drawing conclusions that are not necessarily apt. You say that window frames allow all the benefits you list.

 

I contend that all those benefits are possible, without the additional material, weight, and roof height and thickness.

 

But you'll probably chalk the needlessly high roofline up to "road presence", like the overly high cowl, and the blunt front end, face-lift-gone-wrong headlights, and chunky fender flares, and the boring aft aesthetics, too.

[The B4]

Making the car larger, especially taller keeps the windows big, but hurts aero drag, and all else equal, raises CG.

 

But all else isn't equal... they added mass low, in the engine cradle, to cancel out... Adding at point b to cancel out adding at point A is still ADDING.

 

They could have left the additional mass out. Maybe then they wouldn't have had to de-content the car to keep the weight and cost in check. Adding the engine cradle, while keeping the roof at a moderate, appropriate height, with only the mass of steel that is needed, not needless excess, would keep the weight in check, and LOWER the CG, which would be BETTER, and help keep the chassis even more stable, than more material high in the car's taller than necessary roof.

 

So you're saying that Subaru engineered the Legacy to add frames without hurting the dynamics of the car... hmmmm what a concept. Subaru didn't decontent the car to reduce weight... if anything... the reduction in aluminum usage alone should have skyrocketed the weight. Stop hammering together puzzle pieces that don't match. I will call you on it everytime. This Legacy has the same Center of gravity and a lower coefficient of drag than the outgoing car.

 

 

I never said at the roll structure wasn't integrated into the roof, I said that it had to accomidate more space for the window frames, and thus take up more space.

negligible. the increase in space is outside of the car and is well within the physical dimensions of such things as fenders.

 

I never said that I wanted the doors to fly open in an accident, and you present no data to say that the frameless doors are more likely to fly open.

 

I said I don't want to be trapped in my car, if the window frame gets wadded up, and blocks the door closed.

I wasn't implying frameless doors would. I was stating that your argument was BS. The entire point of door safety is that the doors become part of the structure of the vehicle. If the accident is severe enough, You're going to be trapped in your car. Note the firehouse article. I'd rather be trapped and alive than dead with a door that's easy to open.

 

I know that. I've sent that very article to my father, who is a fire chief, and an instructor. Years ago, when that was first published. That is not news, and it applied to previous frameless Subarus.

 

But a frameless door doesn't get wedged shut if the roof gets crumpled. A window frame might.

The article still applies as the cars as the safety is still designed into the chassis. If your roof gets crumpled... then the chassis on that side is going to be distorted as well... all but ensuring there will be issues with the fitment of the door.

 

There may be instances when a frameless door can be opened and escaped, where a window-frame crumpled into interference with the roof or pillars, might not allow the door to be opened, and one would be trapped inside until the rescue workers arrived and got the jaws and saws set up...

proof? The jaws of life won't cut Subaru B pillars.

 

 

 

Yes, it does. The only car I have seen that doesn't add the dimensions of the window frame into the door portal thickness, and thus the thickness at the sides of the roof... is the SVX. Because the window frames are glassed over, and the window frames meet and overlap the side of the roof structure, the roof structure doesn't wrap over the window frame. the window wraps over the frame, and the roof remains quite low. Thankfully.

AND IT LOOKS LIKE QUASIMODO, the hunchback of the auto industry.

Thicker inside to out? yes... Thicker left to right? no you should look at a current and previous gen together. The roof height has nothing to do with the frames. That had everything to do with Subaru's choice to increase interior head and legroom with height instead of length.

 

 

 

 

There is nothing to say that they couldn't have made those advancements, and kept the frameless windows, and the lighter doors, and the more compact space for the side roof rails, with the same strength advantages.

 

And possibly have kept a nicer, lower, more aerodynamic roofline, kept all the strength with less material (no window frame material needed) with thus less weight, and space)

 

More exotic steel adds weight and cost, so I would hope that they are only using as much as they need to meet their exemplary safety rating, and no more than that.

 

Quieter windows are as simple as better seals, and the window movement mechanism that other frameless cars have to seal their windows.

 

You are drawing conclusions that are not necessarily apt. You say that window frames allow all the benefits you list.

 

I contend that all those benefits are possible, without the additional material, weight, and roof height and thickness.

 

But you'll probably chalk the needlessly high roofline up to "road presence", like the overly high cowl, and the blunt front end, face-lift-gone-wrong headlights, and chunky fender flares, and the boring aft aesthetics, too.

Times like these are when it's evident you don't know what you're talking about. high tensile strength steel is LIGHTER than mild steel. The fact that we've had this conversation before just highlights your ignorance.

 

I did not say that frames added the benefits. I stated that despite adding frames... they were able to achieve everything they wanted. The high roof line isn't road presence. Subaru designed the interior dimensions of the 2010 Legacy before they even touched applying an exterior to it. It may be less than ideal visually, but it was the ideal for creating the interior dimensions they wanted within their imposed packaging constraints. Form follows function.

 

When you can approach a topic with facts instead of your piecemealed arguments that sound good in your head, we can have a proper discussion.

 

until that time... you can keep using your Jump to conclusions mat and no one will take you seriously.

 

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/125/331634958_387617c29f.jpg

[LegGTLT]

Well, this thread sucks now.

[DukeTrout]

^+1

 

B4 and IWSS - maybe you can get your own forum...

[Sydtron]

Making the car larger, especially taller keeps the windows big, but hurts aero drag, and all else equal, raises CG.

 

All things considered, adding a few extra inches of steel doesn't change it much. You might as well start throwing tears up about the brake rotor diameter increasing since the unsprung weight increase from that is going to make a bigger deal than some extra interior room. Or extra tears about it going to a wishbone setup instead of a multilink since there's more weight there too.

 

In the end, the extra interior room isn't going to significantly change the CG.

 

Besides, safety requirements become more stringer every year. From NCAP hoods to roof deformation tests, the old Legacys wouldn't be cleared to sell in most countries. Like it or not, that's how cars are going to be from here on out.

[MJ in PA]

Proof that they could have retained the proper Legacy roofline and profile while going to framed windows:

 

http://www.dragtimes.com/images/11353-2006-Infiniti-M45.jpg

[MikeNH]

I really don't think anyone cares about what you think the Legacy should be.

[minuccims]

This made my day!!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/125/331634958_387617c29f.jpg

[Polo08816]

Yeah, you're obviously better then myself and the rest of the 2010 owners out there. Did it ever occur to you that maybe the the people on here are just a whiny minority and that most people don't give a crap about folding mirrors that have redundant turn signals or a stupid button that either neuters the performance of the car or makes the car drive like it ought to? Because it sure seems that way.

 

Did it ever occur to you that Subaru is mostly a niche brand and they can't utilize the economies of scale if they're trying to pursue the Toyota strategy (minus all the recalls).

[BMA44]

this thread is awesome!

[MikeNH]

Did it ever occur to you that Subaru is mostly a niche brand and they can't utilize the economies of scale if they're trying to pursue the Toyota strategy (minus all the recalls).

No it didn't, because Subaru isn't a "niche" brand. Ferrari is a niche brand. Rolls Royce is a niche brand. Subaru is not. Their sales may be a fraction of Honda or Toyota but to pretend that the same 30 people who keep bitching on this site make one bit of difference to Subaru is foolish.

[LegGTLT]

Then put them on ignore so we don't have to watch it.

[DukeTrout]

No it didn't, because Subaru isn't a "niche" brand. Ferrari is a niche brand. Rolls Royce is a niche brand. Subaru is not. Their sales may be a fraction of Honda or Toyota but to pretend that the same 30 people who keep bitching on this site make one bit of difference to Subaru is foolish.

 

With market share under 5%, Subaru is the very definition of a niche brand. Literally. Any brand with under 5% market share is defined in marketing textbooks as "niche."

[MikeNH]

Let's see where that number is by years end.

[DukeTrout]

As good as the growth is by Subaru right now, they don't have the capacity to grow 5x in one year. They couldn't produce enough cars to meet the demand if it was there.

 

So, 2010, still niche.

[jagcars26]

No it didn't, because Subaru isn't a "niche" brand. Ferrari is a niche brand. Rolls Royce is a niche brand. Subaru is not. Their sales may be a fraction of Honda or Toyota but to pretend that the same 30 people who keep bitching on this site make one bit of difference to Subaru is foolish.

 

That is one half assed statement. Ferrari ? Rolls?,, apples,oranges etc

Subaru has always been and will continue to be a "niche" market vehicle.

And if you think SOA doesn't monitor this site among others(Nasioc,WRXcom,Forester forums,etc etc) your sadly mistaken and living in a dream world.

[Sydtron]

The company has steadily been becoming more and more mainstream. As many tears that have been shed about the 5th gen Legacy are all fine and dandy but look at what happened to the Brat and Baja. Neither let Subaru grow and they were culled because of it. Same for the Legacy Wagon -- never received the sales needed for Subaru to maintain it. If Subaru were a niche brand, they'd have kept it alive. Unfortunately, they're in the business to grow their brand and quite obviously not to sell particular cars.

 

They're not a niche company otherwise they'd be more like Citroen during the Michelin area and less like Hyundai is now.

[LegGTLT]

How are they a mainstream brand? They're going for mainstream but they're not there by any means. Are you going to seriously try to say a company with a STATED MARKET SHARE OF 2.3% is not a niche brand?

 

Read this. This is SOA's own stated number in their own press release. No way around it, they're at 2.3% market share and that is a niche brand/company/etc.

[MikeNH]

That is one half assed statement. Ferrari ? Rolls?,, apples,oranges etc

Subaru has always been and will continue to be a "niche" market vehicle.

And if you think SOA doesn't monitor this site among others(Nasioc,WRXcom,Forester forums,etc etc) your sadly mistaken and living in a dream world.

Of course they'll have marketing people trolling the forums but still even at the 2.3% number someone else posted the (sometimes) silly desires of people on here are in no way an indicator of the bulk of the owners of Subaru.

[Sydtron]

How are they a mainstream brand? They're going for mainstream but they're not there by any means. Are you going to seriously try to say a company with a STATED MARKET SHARE OF 2.3% is not a niche brand? .

 

They're not a mainstream brand, they're a small automotive company. Niche companies such as Panoz or Ferrari. They've never compromised on any car and haven't really been subject to changing market desires. Porsche released an SUV and a sedan, BMW is knee deep in SUVs and Mercedes has a mom SUV/minivan.

 

They went after the money -- they didn't defend any brand identity they had. You can't really claim a company is a niche manufacturer when they're obviously looking at a bigger picture than keeping traditions alive.

 

Niche would mean they're fine with their market share and want to keep on avoiding the mainstream. Meanwhile, back in reality, Subaru has fought to keep their cars competitive against the mainstream and have gone over many hurdles to do so. They still maintain boxers and AWD, but only in the North American market. That has less to do with niche and more to do with staying competitive. If you have so little of a product to move, you need to economy of scale it the best you can to keep it priced low.

 

Since it's inevitable Subaru will offer a non-AWD car soon enough, that's another principle that will be compromised. Since that is one of their main claims to niche-dom, how will that be spun?

 

Maybe the FT86 will have folding mirrors at least