Subaru Crew Cafe

14574 messages, Last post on Dec 04, 2009 at 8:40 AM

You are in the Subaru Crew Forum. Your Host is kcram

What is this discussion about? Subaru

Your Community Leaders are ateixeira and rsholland.

This is the place for Crew members to kick back, relax, and talk about...whatever!

Outline

Messages Page 245 of 1458: 1; ...; 242; 243; 244; 245; 246; 247; 248; ...; 1458; Prev; Next; Last

#2439 of 14574 Frank by artgecko Nov 12, 2002 (5:30 pm)
I had no problems with the headroon in the Scirocco. Of course I'm only 5'8" so I sat pretty low. The Scirocco was the car C&D coined the phrase Super Coupe around. Mine was the first year, so I had tons of problems. Good thing there was only a one year warranty in those days, as I replaced the points and condensor with an electronic ingnition and ripped out two bushel baskets full of emission garbage (and the broken air conditioner, which was a GM unit and about half as big as the block.) It did a lot better after that. Of course anything was an improvement on the car it replaced; a 1969 FIAT 124 wagon (see a theme here?) Steve
#2440 of 14574 What would Jesus drive? by rsholland Nov 13, 2002 (7:08 am)
http://just-auto.com/news_detail.asp?art=39503&dm=yes
#2441 of 14574 Jesus would drive a Forester! by ateixeira Nov 13, 2002 (7:26 am)
I recall a buddy had a monotone white Scirocco, beautiful car. Another had a GTI. But neither held up very well. At least parts were cheap. Jesus would drive a Forester. Why? First of all, he was a fisherman. So AWD is mandatory right there. But he'd need a built-in cooler and a place to stash his rod out of sight. It would have to be efficient, with enough room for a few apostles. Plus, the only time I yell "Jesus" is when I slam the brakes, and I'm sure he'd greatly appreciate the 4 wheel disc brakes with ABS and EBD. -juice
#2442 of 14574 Jesus, again... by rsholland Nov 13, 2002 (7:55 am)
Just got this in my e-mail box from a UK auto site. Thought it would be worth passing on: Let’s get something absolutely clear. I’m no big fan of SUVs. Brick-like aerodynamics and the fact that they tend to be big and heavy is almost enough for me. But what really kills them in my eyes is the simple fact that the people buying them, in the main, don’t use them off-road. Now I know there’s a safety aspect with 4WD that people understandably buy into, but there’s also the not entirely lost fact that your big mass will obliterate anything of substantially smaller mass in a collision – slightly uncomfortable territory in my personal view. People find all kinds of justifications for owning SUVs (‘it was great on the beach on vacation last year’) but deep down they’re a bit of a con. Over engineered for what they do means wasteful to me. The lifestyle marketing guff fishes people in of course, but that’s human nature and they’re free to buy one if they want to. Hey, you know the arguments for and against. But something in the news today has put me in alliance with SUV drivers everywhere. They’ll be indignant when they hear about it and rightly so. Certain religious groups in the US are planning a campaign against SUVs saying that your choice of vehicle is a moral issue and that SUVs are anti-social. This strikes me as a can of worms of immense magnitude that they would do well to steer clear of. ‘What vehicle would Jesus drive?’ Are they serious? I would guess that today he would have a bicycle and would be a keen supporter of public transport. If he had to have a vehicle then maybe he’d plump for a gasoline-electric hybrid like the Toyota Prius. Okay, if he has to have a pure gasoline ICE, then something modest surely – Perodua Nippa? Suzuki Alto? But my real gripe is this: if your choice of vehicle is really a ‘moral issue’, then what about luxury cars and performance cars? They’re not exactly eco-friendly and if you trade down to something more basic, the money saved can surely be diverted to morally good causes. And what about other areas of discretionary spending on luxury or non-essential goods? Should we all live the lives of monks? No, your SUV, should you choose to have one, should not be lambasted on purely moral grounds in this way. The vehicles are perfectly legal and in terms of the wider picture, no morally – or environmentally - worse than many other types of vehicle. Some SUVs are better than others of course and I’m not saying that there is not a case for discouraging the worst excesses via the regulatory environment. But SUVs – or their drivers – should not be singled out as wrong on moral grounds in my view. I’m reminded of Beatrice Hall’s line about free speech: ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death you’re right to say it.’ (The friends of Voltaire, 1906) For ‘say’ substitute ‘drive’. The fact that there is still massive poverty in the world is a serious and complicated question for all of us who live in comparable luxury – and this isn’t really the place for dwelling on that. But picking on SUV drivers seems to me to be a little ill advised in this context, as well as missing the point (unless the point is simply to stir things up). Bob
#2443 of 14574 by ateixeira Nov 13, 2002 (8:00 am)
Luxury cars have only a small portion of the market. SUVs are extremely popular, and cars are outselling trucks. So they took aim at a big target. I use my Forester to capacity and my next vehicle might be bigger, if it's as fun to drive. -juice
#2444 of 14574 This may(?) have been posted before... by rsholland Nov 13, 2002 (10:52 am)
More on Subaru 2002 Tokyo Motor Show http://www.fhi.co.jp/english/news/press/2002/02_10_11e.htm FHI 5-year plan http://www.fhi.co.jp/english/news/press/2002/02_05_17_e1.htm
#2446 of 14574 by ateixeira Nov 13, 2002 (11:07 am)
I'll pull some interesting things from that: * Next generation new platform (SUW?) * hybrid power source (GM?) * new design language (the Alfa dude) * Increase joint purchasing and strategic procurement with GM group (careful!) If they want Innovative, Individual, and Courageous, they'd better bring us all the models we're asking for. Innovative? Let's see some 5/6 speeds right away. Side curtain air bags as an option. Shiftronic more widely available. They are way behind here, not innovating anything. Individual? OK, I'll give them that. They'd be courageous if the Forester STi and Blitzen were sold here. SoA is actually the opposite, very conservative. And I don't see how "driving, safety, and environment" mesh with being courageous. -juice
#2447 of 14574 by ateixeira Nov 13, 2002 (1:00 pm)
Bob - did you see Edmunds' review of the GX470? It's on the home page. You know I've been a big fan, but two misses are mind boggling. First, the hatch opens toward the curb side. Stupid. Just stupid. 2nd, the glass does not open separately. That wouldn't be a big deal if the 4Runner didn't address both of those concerns, and it shares a platform. 4 Runner doesn't offer the 3rd row. So neither of them really nailed it. -juice
#2448 of 14574 Lexus GX470 by rsholland Nov 13, 2002 (2:40 pm)
One thing I'm not wild about is that the body is 3" taller than the 4Runner, which means a higher center of gravity than does the 4Runner. I do like having the 4x4 lever that includes a Neutral position, unlike the 4Runner. I do agree with about the rear door. As you know it's sold in other markets a Land Cruiser-Lite, and the rear door also has the spare mounted on it. Probably because it is sold mostly in Australia, Japan & the UK, is the reason for the US-unfriendly rear door. They probably don't think it's worth the expense to re-hinge the rear door just for a few markets in which it is sold. I don't agree with that thinking, especially here in the USA, where it' marketed as a premium product. Bob