HIT ME ... I like the new Impreza look !!!

discopotato03 · Post by **discopotato03** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 8:07 am

I was wondering when the term "Evolution Lancer" would pop up .

I have my bents and biases and after an information session with someone who lives and breathes suspension the Subaru's suddenly don't look so good .
Basically if you want burger with the works from a strictly performance point of view its going to be an Evo Lancer every time .

Back to the deformed looking thing called the new Impreza .
Quite some years ago manufacturers of all kinds of things inc cars looked at how much influence the better looking partner of your average family has when it comes to purchasing things of any significance . If they could appeal to the womens tastes then other forces at work often meant success at the sales counter .
Now being strictly non sexist we know that women think very differently to men about all kinds of things and their likes and dislikes in the way things look are often very different to our own .
Now personally I think many current/newer cars are hideous to look at and I certainly wouldn't pay money for them .

With the "Impreza" I think Subaru may have gone looking for a body style that's a complete departure from all previous efforts because they want people to think its a complete new ground up high tech whiz bang car with every thing that opens and shuts . There is no bug eyed monster look nor the "cute" little piggy bank that came after it .
Subaru know that they will probably sell many more of the garden variety models than WRX/STi's because that's all most people are prepared to pay for in a small/medium sized car . They also know that Hatches are useful to some for carrying shopping/kids bikes/baby kit etc so there is some young buyer appeal about them .

The technical aspects I don't know yet but I think I did hear that they've changed to a different form or IRS so lets hope its a good one .
Note : Not all IRS systems are created equal and multi link + upright ones have the potential to work far better geometry wise .
I understand the engine is a similar/same flat four and from the look of it is still too far forward of the front "axle line" . I'd like to think that Subaru have done things to further develop the transmission because earlier ones keep proving that the cases don't hack high torque loadings so things get out of alignment and lunch themselves .
Really the whole flat four and north south gearbox looks alright initially but from a weight distribution and packaging viewpoint it has its issues . With the gearbox under the floor pan it takes space from there and dictates that the engine must sit further forward .
Much as though the transverse (east west) engine can be a pain to work on it can sit above the front axle line and have the gearbox next to it - no tranny hump needed . The gearbox can be larger in diametre and be a two shaft rather than a three shaft indirect design so the shafts are better supported . Some manufacturers drive the tail shaft (for AWD) off the back of the front differential which works well provided the diff is properly supported and the angle drive beefy enough .

If raw performance and handling is your meat I think your going to have to look elsewhere . So many things about the Impreza platform scream bean counter , the fact that the WRC rally class allows huge departures from production cars means they don't have to have the homologation basis to build a real bucking screaming winner any more .
Mitsubishi stayed longer than Subaru in production based classes ie Grp N/Grp A and thats why the Evo suspension/transmission set up is more competition baised . The sort of engine characteristics from restrictor type turbo engines better suits road cars that nothing nothing nothing 4000rpm wham does . If you can have the turbo terror pull like b-gg-ry from 3 to 6.5+ with a close ratio box/AWD/propper suspension it'll be a rocket ship .

Sorry getting off topic , cheers A .

fredsub · Post by **fredsub** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 8:25 am

thats quite a post disco...the lancers do look good....i guess the facts show they perform better on the track too.
but the attraction of subaru layout ie flat four and north south gearbox, makes it easy to work on from a home mechanics point of view.
Agree Subaru needs to cut down some models, I say the outback as well.

Wonder where they get their Market research?:???:

Outback bloke · Post by **Outback bloke** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:09 am

Where Subaru stuffed up was still calling it a WRX. If they had come out and called it a Plio or something else from the range then then it may have been accepted in a better way than it has.

Why even bother putting a turbo motor in some thing that looks like it is "mums car to go and get the kids and shopping".

Why try and get more of the market share when there is 5 or 6 other manufacturers already offering the exact body style and look.

The new Lancer has been spoken about a few times and with good reason. From the front it is a very sporty looking car with sleek lines like you would expect from a sports car. Had the designers been able to make the rear as much of a stand out sports car look then you would have another classic/cult car on your hands some what like the WRX was originally. It is still a very sporty looking car, which is what the WRX used to be.

Even the bug-eye still looked quite aggressive and was a sporty design. There is no way known that the new one can ble classed as sporty looking, individual or appealing to the small sports car brigade.

As for dropping the Outback from the line up, why would any one even mention that? The Forester is going even softer than most soft roaders. It is also smaller inside than an Outback/Liberty.

<sarcasm>If originality is what you are looking for then here is an idea that know one has thought of yet. Go and buy a Forester which is designed for offroad and put some WRX suspension in it and lower it. No one else has done this yet so you will be a stand out on Subaru drive days. </end sarcasm>

The new Impreza/Focus/Yaris/whatever is a run around car. Not a WRX type car at all. The STi version that is coming out is a much better looking car but that is compared to the base wrx not other cars on the road.

Perfect world Subaru in my book would be some what like this
Liberty/GT
Outback with GT option and dual range.
Brumby on Outback platform.
Forester with GT option the same height
Impreza redesign

fredsub · Post by **fredsub** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:26 am

I am just assuming:mrgreen: that Subaru have different production lines/setup for Liberty/Outback, and there really not much difference between them.
dual range/suspension etc should be offered as factory options.
Lets face it, in the world of car manufacturers, Subaru is no where as big as some of the others, they've been successful targeting a niche, trying for the wider market? well we'll see i guess. and IMO, that niche is no longer there, as all the others are making soft-offroaders too

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:52 am

Brumby on Outback platform

Mmmm, now that would be a sweet ute! It'd need at have at least a 500kg tray capacity. Be great if it was available in two spec levels:

1. ag-quip: Option of 2.5 petrol or 2.5 turbo diesel engines, vinyl floors, dual range AWD, high ground clearance, front and rear LSD's, all-terrain tyres. Target the off-road, rural, and construction markets.

2. sport: Option of 2.5 turbo or 3.0 H6 petrol engines, tricked out with bling (leather, electrics, hi-fi, body kit, etc), single range AWD, highway terrain tyres. Target the on-road market.

Jack

brumbyrunner · Post by **brumbyrunner** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 1:09 pm

BYB-01 wrote:As for dropping the Outback from the line up, why would any one even mention that? The Forester is going even softer than most soft roaders. It is also smaller inside than an Outback/Liberty.

Perfect world Subaru in my book would be some what like this
Liberty/GT
Outback with GT option and dual range.
Brumby on Outback platform.
Forester with GT option the same height
Impreza redesign

I say that because Subaru are making the Outback less off-road orientated than they should. The Forester was their opportunity to make a larger, more off-road wagon and they fell well short. If they had made it bigger than the Outback, 7 seats, H6, dual range, 2.5t towing capacity, they wouldn't need the Outback. Realising this later, they came out with the 7 seat Tribeca but 4 models so close to each other does not make sense to me.

Now whether they call the largest model a Tribeca, Forester or Liberty makes no difference and using my criteria above, they could just have easily created a bigger Liberty platform to make Outbacks and Brumbys from, left the Forester where it is and they wouldn't need the Tribeca. I have nothing against the Outback, it is easily the best looking Suby in the current line-up. If I didn't need to tow 3.5t I'd be driving a new Outback H6 right now. No question. And if I get a new tow rig I just might do that.

steptoe · Post by **steptoe** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:18 pm

right, some sort of retraction or correction here. I like the look of the new Imprezas I have seen so far, until today when I watched a girl driver open her door of a WRX and then I thought ERK! Not her or the presence of a male companion, but those horrible framed doors - YUCK is all I can say

Thalass · Post by **Thalass** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:44 pm

Wow... nobody loves the outback but me.

I agree with BYB, more or less. In the early days I thought the Forrester was the more "off road" of the triplets. With the Liberty being the strictly road version, and the Outback being the useful medium between them. This is why I bought mine if the first place - it's good on the road, and goes most places I want to go. Hell, after the powerlines venture at the WA bbq I know it goes more places than I thought! I always thought the Forrester would be better off road, as it seemed to have better ground clearance and a shorter wheelbase - and it lacks the long low nose of the outback.

But yeah. The Outback is re-merging into the Liberty line, and the forrester is taking it's place as the soft-roader. Don't even get me started on the Tribeca - it's like the porche 4wd of the fleet. Or the H3, even.

I wonder if it would be possible to mod an outback into a modern version of the brumby... it'd cost a fortune to do.

To me, they need to get rid of the tribeca, beef up the Forrester a bit to take it's place (not too much, even if it was a bit bigger than the Pathfinder it'd work), re-beef the outback in the Forrester's place, and have the liberty as the road-only type. The impreza can resume it's role as sporty zoom-zoom car once it's redesigned again.

Oh, and while I'm telling FHI what to do here, hows about an EV that's not an ugly smart-car wannabe like the R1? Perhaps a series hybrid outback with at least 100km battery range and a multifuel generator (so I can run it off of the kero I can get from work). /dream

sublime · Post by **sublime** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:52 am

Hmmm... This thread is really interesting! How many of you who have posted would actually buy a new Subaru (despite its looks)? Perhaps not many.

fredsub has summed it up best IMHO. Subaru's niche is long gone and it needs to expand it's market share. The Impreza has been designed to increase Subaru's market share in Europe, where traditionally they have been very weak. New boxer diesel anyone????

The weirdest thing for me is when my Mother mentioned that she really likes the look of the new Subaru

. My Mum does not normally mention cars!

Thalass · Post by **Thalass** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:04 am

Heh. Well, I suppose it's better that Subaru continue to make profit, and one day throw up a design the "proper" subaru people will like, than to stick with a niche market that's not really there anymore and go bankrupt.

As for buying a new subaru... I couldn't afford it!

Outback bloke · Post by **Outback bloke** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:39 am

I would buy a new one if they had one I like. Sounds kind of stupid I know but in all honesty there isn't one that I would buy that I didn't feel the need to modify.

The one I am driving now was bought to see how it would go. We could have bought a new one but why pay an extra XXX amount of dollars on some thing you don't know if you want.

Having owned it I know I won't be buying a new one yet. Reason being the 6 has the power I want to tow with and tour with but I refuse to a light beige interior offroad. It is down right ridiculous putting that colour in the Outback. I also won't pay more for rego for that car when it is exactly what I have been driving for years now. Probably the reason I have been driving a 4 for so many years.

This where my reasoning of a GT option in the Outback would be good. If I could buy a 190KW Outback 4 cylinder from Subaru directly then yes I would buy a new car. Until then they will be newish ones that I can justify modifying.

I would also consider the 6 cylinder rego if the Outback came in a user friendly colour.

I would place my order tomorrow for a GT-Outback-Brumby.

I see where Brumbyrunner is coming from. Imagine if you could get an Outback that came from the factory geared to drive 30"x10" tyres, had an extra 3-4 inches clearance, a larger tow capacity and was around the size of a Falcadore. Not to big yet a little larger than they are now.

Oh yeah, drop the Tribeca in the same way as the SVX and Vortex. Expensive mistakes that people will fondly look back on in years to come.

vortex_06 · Post by **vortex_06** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:10 am

Its a discrace in my opinion,and a frame door what the hell is that about thats a total load of crap.Anyway i think we should all hang on to our current 'traditonal' subs as all cars are soon to be cloned all to look alike i mean to the everyday joe a new impreza focus and mazda are practically the same.Anyway i hate it.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:13 pm

From Wheels magazine:

The current Forester is one of few compact SUVs to offer a dual-range gearbox for greater off-road flexibility, yet in a nod to compact SUVs predominantly urban role, the new model has discarded this useful feature.

http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/News/The+ne ... ester.html

None of the current model Subarus, nor it seems any of the new ones due to be released are as capable off-road as the older model vehicles. If I do decide to sell my Outback and Brumby, I'll most likely end up buying from a different manufacturer.

Post by **Alex** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 3:04 pm

shesh! no dual range. something is seriously wrong with subaru..is there someone new there or soemthing?

alex

Thalass · Post by **Thalass** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:53 pm

... No dual-range? Does that still count as a subaru? It certainly doesn't count as an off-road vehicle. I'll definitely be keeping my 99 Outback for a few more years.

SUBYDAZZ · Post by **SUBYDAZZ** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:57 am

brumbyrunner wrote:...While I'm on the subject, can someone explain how viable it is to have 2 different vehicles competing in the same market segment? Namely the Liberty and the Forester. I reckon the Forester should have been 1/3 bigger ( same size as a Pathfinder) to start with. Leave the Liberty the same, drop the Outback, and they wouldn't have needed the Tribeca. Makes sence to me anyway

Originally they weren't. The Forester was based on the Impreza floorpan, but was significantly different to the Impreza (you can see the difference is plain). The Liberty and Outback shared floorpan and many other components (as they still do) but the Outback was the more "offroad" variant. Effectively you could say there isn't much between them still now, the trim and features offered in the several models. The Lib / Outback have always been a better build quality / featured than the Impreza/Forester line. I have a late 2004 Impreza with very low km and I can't see it lasting as long and being as quiet as my 1992 Liberty with an extra 12 years and 250,000km on it, it just doesn't have the same fit & finish for mine.

SUBYDAZZ · Post by **SUBYDAZZ** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:11 am

BYB-01 wrote: <sarcasm>If originality is what you are looking for then here is an idea that know one has thought of yet. Go and buy a Forester which is designed for offroad and put some WRX suspension in it and lower it. No one else has done this yet so you will be a stand out on Subaru drive days. </end sarcasm>

LOL, you're a man of foresight!

Thalass wrote:... No dual-range? Does that still count as a subaru? It certainly doesn't count as an off-road vehicle. I'll definitely be keeping my 99 Outback for a few more years.

Go with the Auto tranny then, almost as good. Some would argue better.

Thalass · Post by **Thalass** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:32 am

Meh. I'm not much for auto slushbuckets. My left foot twitches all the time, and my left arm. Not sure how I'm going to go in an EV with no gearbox!

Outback bloke · Post by **Outback bloke** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:36 am

This is what I am talking about. Just look at the the pics of these WRX and you will see what I am talking about.

Outback bloke · Post by **Outback bloke** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:39 am

Then have a look at these.