Zimmy Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 The following came from thecarconnection.com: "Subaru of America confirmed today it will debut its 2005 Outback at the Chicago Auto Show next week and include a 250-hp turbo version to boot. The Legacy-based vehicle will join Subie's stable of trucks when it goes on sale later this year. Subaru went for the truck classification on the next Outback because of its load of SUV features. Environmentalists disagree, saying that Subaru likes the Outback wearing the truck label because it allows the Japanese automaker to evade tougher EPA car fuel-economy standards." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBY Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 The fact of the matter is that AWD is bad for gas milage, probably 1-2mpg average would be my estimate. Environmentalists should concentrate on the sub 20 mpg SUV's and compliment Subaru for building an alternative that at least gets ~25 mpg. Having said that Subaru needs to be careful, a lot of their buyers are intelligent environmentally minded types, here in California at least (cat-less exhaust WRX crowd excluded). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skylab Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 I can't complain about AWD mpg. I get 30mpg on the freeway and have squeezed 405 miles out of one tank. I'd say that's pretty good. :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evolutionmovement Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 But the GT is classified as a car and will at best have only marginally better mileage due to the lower ride height. If it were for mileage reasons, I don't think it would affect their corporate average either as they have no high-mileage cars to offset. I would assume that the STI also would get worse mileage than the Outback turbo and that's classified as a car. There's no way either way that Subaru can met CAFE for cars as at best some of them just barely make the average on highway. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tide Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 Its more likely the opposite. They take this decent car and its car safety features and car mileage and turn it into an SUV class. Suddenly its at the top of the SUV mileage and safety ratings lists.... Good marketing possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBY Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 After all, most SUV's are just Wagons with a lift, unibody ones that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akm3 Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 But does that mean I couldn't Autocross a new Legacy Sedan because now it's a truck and you can't AutoX trucks? -Allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBY Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 The Legacy is still a car, The Outback is now a "truck". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBE555 Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Personally I think considering the majority of the clientel of the Outback, the H6 is the better selection. I'm also wondering why the OB Sedan still lives as it appears an oxymoron to me, a sedan, but marketed towards SUV crowd which likes the space for utility of hauling stuff. Just a bit off in my book. I rarely see OB sedans and the ones I do are the H6's. It would appear a 3.0R Legacy Sedan could take care of that desire for a sedan and a 6-cyl engine. That's just my observation and opinion. Does anyone have sales figures of Outback Sedans versus Wagons? Would be an interesting thing to compare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conduit Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 I know my mom sold an E430 for an Outback Wagon because her aging knees prefered the entry height and seating position. She absolutely prefers the maintenance costs. She didn't buy an SUV because it didn't feel drivable to her in a busy parking lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EJ20H-TT Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 Oddly enough the H6 has worse fuel economy than than the flat 4 Turbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kage Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 [quote name='evolutionmovement']But the GT is classified as a car and will at best have only marginally better mileage due to the lower ride height. If it were for mileage reasons, I don't think it would affect their corporate average either as they have no high-mileage cars to offset. I would assume that the STI also would get worse mileage than the Outback turbo and that's classified as a car. There's no way either way that Subaru can met CAFE for cars as at best some of them just barely make the average on highway. Steve[/quote] Steve, "trucks" also count against a manufacturer's CAFE. Having the Outback classified as a truck will mean Subaru will receive credits from CAFE rather than penalties. Trucks only need to meet an average fuel economy of 21 or 22 mpg (I can't remember which), whereas passenger vehicles must meet the more stringent 28 mpg average. Because Subaru's "trucks" exceed the lower average, Subaru will receive CAFE credits to offset some of their less efficient passenger vehicles (eg STi, XT) which don't meet the higher passenger vehicle average. Pretty much EVERY single auto manufacturer out there has been taking advantage of this loophole for years. Subaru has been squeaking by, but now with the introduction of more turbo models, they had to cave in and follow the herd. I'm sure it was a tough decision and I'm equally sure they knew they'd take a PR hit from the Enviro. crowd. But it was a necessary step in their evolution toward being a performance/premium player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBE555 Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 An interesting note was made on 'the other board' that considering a sizeable portion of the Subaru crowd lives or plays at higher elevations, where the OB is rather popular, the Turbo engine may have been asked for and will probably perform better at the upper elevations. Could be good reasoning I guess for H6 and H4T as I never thought of that angle. Okay, thats one out the window. Still, why do they need an Outback Sedan. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPower Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 I'm doubting that there will be an OB sedan any more. A sedan "truck" would be pretty silly. I will be frustrated with Subaru if they offer a 2.5T and 3.0 in the OB but not in the Legacy. It would show that they (SoA) are sticking with the OB as it's main focus car in the US since that's what really saved them it seems, and in doing so, the Legacy may not have be given a fair shake to be all that it could be (re: options not going to be available in Legacy). I'll believe the 2.5T option in the OB when I see it. Maybe I just don't WANT to believe it right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evolutionmovement Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 Interesting point about the CAFE credits. Could offset any minor penalties from their car fleet, then. I believe anything with a flat floor in the back can be classified as a truck now. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguy Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 I'm just hoping they don't do that two-tone crap again. The Euro Outback without the two-tone cladding looks so nice. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBE555 Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Hey Kevin, they're doing that now and I think it looks better than ANY two-tone as well. That two-tone thing totally isn't upscale. *thumbsdown* ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPower Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Looks like there is still two tone. It does look bad. The only way I would consider it would be if it were the unpainted scratch resistent plastic like on the B9, XC70, and AllRoad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBE555 Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 If they can offer monotone (which looks a hell of a lot better IMO) for 04, why can't they for 05? Or is that just the official OB scheme they love to show. It's totally last weeks deal unfortunately and they appear to have a hard time moving forward. The monotone OBs look a step up just from the change in paint style alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPower Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Maybe the two tone they showed is an L.L. Bean edition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.