[chassis]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

Subaru's appeal goes far, far, far beyond the safety-focused tree-hugger archetype that someone mentioned earlier. The rally- and tuner-based subgenre that (still) maintains the WRX/STi market is a tiny fraction of Subaru's niche.

Spend any time in a hilly and/or mountainous part of the U.S. or Canada, and that'll reveal its true market: capable, reliable, functional, utilitarian, easily maintain-able year-round transportation. 'Soccer moms' in Colorado, Oregon, Washington state, upstate New York, Vermont/NH, Maine, and the like don't drive Mazdas -- or BMWs, for that matter. They drive Subarus.

Agree. Having lived in the mid-Atlantic and travelled through New England a number of times, my take is that if Vermont had a state vehicle, it would be a green Subaru wagon.

[Sarg33]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

Subaru's appeal goes far, far, far beyond the safety-focused tree-hugger archetype that someone mentioned earlier. The rally- and tuner-based subgenre that (still) maintains the WRX/STi market is a tiny fraction of Subaru's niche.

Spend any time in a hilly and/or mountainous part of the U.S. or Canada, and that'll reveal its true market: capable, reliable, functional, utilitarian, easily maintain-able year-round transportation. 'Soccer moms' in Colorado, Oregon, Washington state, upstate New York, Vermont/NH, Maine, and the like don't drive Mazdas -- or BMWs, for that matter. They drive Subarus.

+1 I agree with Viffermike.

It also doesn't hurt their sales that they are advertising like crazy. I constantly see Subaru commercials on TV. My wife bought a new and still owns a 2014 Subaru Crosstrek with CVT. We have had zero issues with it. Oh wait, I had to replace a head light bulb once. lol But seriously, they are reasonably priced, rock solid in the snow and relatively safe vehicles. Subaru has lacked the higher end luxury and tech of other brands, but I think they are finally realizing it as there newest models seem to be trying to fluff up the interiors and add more tech. And Subaru has a very loyal following.

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by fastboatster

Yes, these capabilities are used to the limit when these cars are driven to the grocery stores or to schools. Truth is, a lot of these capabilities are never used and probably don’t exist anymore. What I don’t like about Subaru is what they sold this notion to masses that awd=safety. You get a lot of morons driving these vehicles thinking they are invincible, and I’m not talking about wrx or the sti. Honestly, I kind of feel good when I hear about recent manufacturing defects Subaru had. They grew and made a lot of money by misinforming consumers and using their relative ignorance of safe driving practices.

Fact: 4WD is inherently safer than two-wheel drive for the average driver. There's no such thing as too much traction. So I call BS because, for the lot of humans that drive, AWD does, in fact, equal safety because it gives control in situations where two drive wheels likely wouldn't have it.

As for the morons you mention ... I haven't seen it, and I've driven all over this continent and am really, really good at profiling make-model tendencies. If anything, Subaru drivers are generally among the most aware and predictable.

Finally: 4WD Forester > 2WD Jeep. All. Day. Long.

:: drops mic ::

[Red Bread]

AWD doesn't help at all in braking. Living in Texas and frequently driving in New Mexico, the first cars to go off the road in initial snowfall are Audis or Subarus driven by over confident drivers. I also see lots of STI's and WRX's driven in bad weather on summer tires.

A Viper on snow tires > Subaru on summer tires.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

AWD doesn't help at all in braking. Living in Texas and frequently driving in New Mexico, the first cars to go off the road in initial snowfall are Audis or Subarus driven by over confident drivers. I also see lots of STI's and WRX's driven in bad weather on summer tires.

A Viper on snow tires > Subaru on summer tires.

Engine braking.

But I digress,

A lot of people drive on snow on warm ground, the snow is melting almost instantly, the biggest issue is the slush beneath and the AWD does help them maintain forward movement in those conditions, which in turn gives some gyroscopic stability. Often a 2WD car can't move in those conditions because there's just not enough weight on the drive wheels and the torque just all goes to those wheels at once. It's not the worst conditions though, the relatively warm ground means when it's plowed or has melted a bit, you are better off with good snow/winter tires. Most places that are below 50 degrees latitude and below 7000' never really have to worry that much. The sun goes high enough in the sky in the winter to burn off the ice and snow from streets that are black and absorb the rays, etc.

On the other hand, in places where you get ice and snow compacted and impacted that stays on the roads all winter, until around late March when the same effect above starts to happen, it's a different issue completely. Just getting a car moving at an intersection or stop is no small feat. Winter tires become not just a luxury, but a necessity, including studs. Studs are for these ice conditions. The term "skating rink" comes to mind, but not just on level, but all sorts of grades, up and down. Most people that don't live in this don't really know or understand it. AWD can be a huge benefit because you try to "go" at any intersection and the wheels just spin. I watch it every day, FWD, RWD, they try to move and the car just sits there spinning wheels. At some point, it's a safety issue. I had one situation a few winters ago where I had a car come spinning through an intersection the wrong way when I was making a LH turn. Only hitting the gas on my AWD BMW got me clear and that sure wouldn't have worked with 2WD, it would have just spun wheels. Braking is about the same and more dependent on tires, although engine braking is a bit better obviously, but the ability to move the car from a standstill or accelerate can't be downplayed enough in these specific environments.

From a sales standpoint, it makes more money to convince everyone they need it, just like the "better have it and not need it than...".

[Red Bread]

I think it comes down to tires being the most important factor and awd with the wrong tires leads many drivers down here into a false sense of security. It's one thing if you live in an area that switches to snows in the winter, but in areas that that's less common, awd is a false flag.

[chowser51]

Had a '15 Legacy 3.6R for 4yrs/77k miles (2014-2018) and had no issues. Loved it. Was going to trade into an '18 WRX but didn't like the feel of the WRX nor that it required premium and had horrible mpgs. I decided if I'm going to pay for premium gas I might as well come back to BMW.

[heavyD^2]

Not sure why people are arguing about the benefits of AWD. Some people feel they absolutely need it and others don't. I live in Canada and I have driven MR2 Turbo, Mustang GT PP1, M2 in several winters with no issue on proper winter tires but not everyone has confidence in their driving abilities in bad conditions or simply aren't good drivers as plenty of people just aren't good at it. No right or wrong. However pretty well every manufacturer offers AWD these days in most models so Subaru doesn't really offer anything you can't get from other automakers. Their engines and transmission are largely inferior to the competition and the reality is that they sell mostly based on brand loyalty and an undeserved reputation of reliability. Despite positive sales their profits are taking a nosedive as their quality issues have caught up to them;

https://www.autonews.com/automakers-...warranty-costs

[SteveinArizona]

Originally Posted by GeorgeA

The first BRZ I got had to be lemoned because it would not turn on. The comfort access start button wouldn't turn the motor. Subaru denied the claim and the car sat for its full lease period (had to lease another car in place so ended up with 2 payments). Subaru denied the claim until months after the lease was over. Worst company to deal with, they do not care about their customers.

I ended up buying a used 2017 BRZ after that first one with hopes of it actually working fine and so far only 4 visits to the dealership for 2 engine out services. But at least it turns on. Would not recommend to anybody.

I also had a 2009 Outback that was bought new and only driven 15k miles in 10 years, the transmission went bad on it at 11k miles but out of warranty due to age and Subaru did nothing to help.

Do you know the definition of insanity -- doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

I think it comes down to tires being the most important factor and awd with the wrong tires leads many drivers down here into a false sense of security. It's one thing if you live in an area that switches to snows in the winter, but in areas that that's less common, awd is a false flag.

:: picks mic back up ::

Yep. My retorts (purposefully) don't introduce tires into the equation. Fact is, only the WRX/STi come with three-season tires as standard because, well, they're performance cars that happen to be 4WD. The rest of the line come with four-season tires as standard -- and the rest of the line are the ones aimed at the 'average driver'.

So, to restate: For the average driver, 4WD is inherently safer than 2WD if the same type of tire is used.

Any above-average driver or so-called 'car enthusiast' should know that summer tires are not good below 40F or so on any vehicle. That kind of knowledge is (or should be) basic 101-level stuff.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

:: picks mic back up ::

Yep. My retorts (purposefully) don't introduce tires into the equation. Fact is, only the WRX/STi come with three-season tires as standard because, well, they're performance cars that happen to be 4WD. The rest of the line come with four-season tires as standard -- and the rest of the line are the ones aimed at the 'average driver'.

So, to restate: For the average driver, 4WD is inherently safer than 2WD if the same type of tire is used.

Any above-average driver or so-called 'car enthusiast' should know that summer tires are not good below 40F or so on any vehicle. That kind of knowledge is (or should be) basic 101-level stuff.

Oh, absolutely agree. Now if Subaru would just make more turbos. My mom lives at 7k feet, so giving up 30% of the stock power just isn't fun when she can buy anything with a turbo and give up negligible power. I won't recommend a Subaru to her because of this.

[Gamb1t]

Subaru used to enjoy a niche market of quirky AWD that's cheap and reliable. its main competitor that offered FT AWD was Audi Quattro at a premium price.
However the last decade or so saw a rise of AWD products from other mfgs. I'm curious to know what's Subaru's distinction now?

[eluded]

New STI is rumored to have 400 horses.

#AboutTime

[fastboatster]

Originally Posted by eluded

New STI is rumored to have 400 horses.

#AboutTime

Wonder what gas and engine oil mpg it will have (16mpg for gas
and 2000 mpg of engine oil). And what the price will be.

[heavyD^2]

Originally Posted by eluded

New STI is rumored to have 400 horses.

#AboutTime

I have not heard this anywhere. The new STI is using the FB25 that's used in the Ascent and highly doubtful they can get 400 hp out of that engine. Everything I have heard points to about 330 hp max for the next STI.

[fastboatster]

Thinking about the STI, I recently came across some garbage news article where somebody complained their significant other got an STI. Did not expect so much hate for wrx sti, and it turned out sti was standing for an std in that article. Avoid the STI like STIs.

[F32Fleet]

AWD really is a response to customers who no longer wanted to have to deal with snow tires and occasionally go "off road".

It also helps that snow plowing is more expansive than what it was even 30 yrs ago.

[Moisture]

Quite frankly flat/boxer engines are poop and the CVT's seal the deal. Otherwise they are not a bad car though. Japanese cars are good quality. Honda and Acura has sealed the deal with their fuel dilution problems on the new turbo engines but again, otherwise great cars. The Accord is impressive for the price.

But in terms of top drivetrain quality, I vote for Mazda and Toyota. The Skyactiv drivetrains have proven to be not in excellent with the way the run and produce power, but reliability is very good. Since Toyota has invested into Mazda for their Skyactiv-X technology, not hard to tell who is making the all around "people's car" as of late.

[SteveinArizona]

Originally Posted by heavyD^2

I have not heard this anywhere. The new STI is using the FB25 that's used in the Ascent and highly doubtful they can get 400 hp out of that engine. Everything I have heard points to about 330 hp max for the next STI.

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2021...etails-report/

[aerostar]

Originally Posted by SteveinArizona

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2021...etails-report/

Well, I hope they truly upgrade their driveline issues then.

I had squeaky throwout bearings for the life of the car, even after several warranty replacements.

[heavyD^2]

Originally Posted by SteveinArizona

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2021...etails-report/

Highly skeptical as this looks like typical Subaru BS hype like the S209 where they were promoting the vehicle as having forged pistons only for the actual product to quietly ship with cast pistons. MB had to put a lot of money and technology into their 4-cylinder engine to get 400 hp so I have a really hard time believing a company that can't even build a 150 hp 4-cylinder that doesn't burn oil is going to be able to make a high output engine like that for a $40k car.

[theEZV]

I would think around 330-340 is where they will settle at to keep the starting price under 40k. Doesn't really matter, just give us the FA24 already. The aftermarket will take care of the rest.