Toyota can take over now

entirelyturbo · Post by **entirelyturbo** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:08 pm

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/indu ... re-subaru/

This could be both good and bad IMO.

entirelyturbo · Post by **entirelyturbo** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:40 pm

Dunno if it's clear what's going on, but we all know Toyota bought 8.7% interest in FHI after GM sold off their shares. Due to previous laws in Japan, they were prohibited from buying FHI out, but those laws have changed and now Toyota can legally buy FHI completely out if they want.

Richard · Post by **Richard** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:30 pm

If anything does happen, they better not replace the boxer engine. Improve it they may, but don't f___ up a good thing.

n2x4 · Post by **n2x4** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:57 pm

First a hatch only impreza and now this? Sheesh.

206er · Post by **206er** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:37 am

yeah if this all does happen and there is an I4 impreza...

skid542 · Post by **skid542** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:43 am

Noooooo.... An AWD Camery? What is this world coming to?

jnorion · Post by **jnorion** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 6:58 am

skid542 wrote:Noooooo.... An AWD Camery? What is this world coming to?

Why would that be a bad thing? They've made one before...

MPtyza · Post by **MPtyza** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:01 am

Honestly, I don't believe an AWD Camry is a bad thing. I mean, if Toyota took over FHI, it'd be a lot easier to build a Hybrid Subaru, and in return they could have a (good) AWD system for their cars.

What's so bad about the damn Camry? All I read about at times is how Toyotas are bland styling wise. Who the hell buys a damn economy car or family sedan based on styling alone? Personally I'd rather have reliability over what some call nice styling. I like the Camry. I'd never own one, but not because others feel it's a boring car, but because I prefer my Subarus. I think an AWD Camry (again) would be a great idea. I believe they did offer one in the early 90's, but they called it All-Trac.

However, if they think they can waltz right in and put inline or V engines into new Subaru's, then they can go fuck themselves, that shit just ain't right. Improving upon the flat engines is just fine in my book. Hell bring out a 200HP 2.0L flat 4 that gets 30mpg, I'm all for that, just don't do away with the flat engine. I feel that they'd just kinda pool their resources, and let Subaru operate somewhat seperately, unlike the way GM does their shit.

skid542 · Post by **skid542** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:27 am

My comment wasn't meant to be a knock to the Camry nor it actually being AWD. It was meant to reflect my dissaproval of Toyota and Subaru merging. I just feel that it would result in the loss of a lot of the uniqueness that Subarus posses. It's not that I have anything against Toyota's, my mom drives one and it does just great, but I just don't feel that they should be involved with the future of Subaru.

BAC5.2 · Post by **BAC5.2** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:12 pm

Keep the flat motor, or sales will drop. It's as simple as that. People buying outbacks and crap don't care, but the majority of subaru's target market will. Turn the STi into an I4, and I'd rather buy an EVO. It would be the best thing to happen to Mitsubishi.

evolutionmovement · Post by **evolutionmovement** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 6:37 pm

I don't see Toyota changing Subaru much other than giving money. Something along the lines of Ford and Aston Martin. Toyota doesn't buy companies to absorb them or else they wouldn't have bothered building new ones like Lexus and Scion. They easily could've bought some established marques, but don't like to be saddled by old ideas, inefficient ways of building, and they don't need to.

Toyota is going to be number 1 because they are the shrewdest company out there. They aren't afraid to take risks (and can easily afford to lose as long as it doesn't affect their solid image of reliability), anticipate market trends just ahead (but not too far ahead), and are obsessively efficient. They generally don't build cars to satisfy enthusiasts because they don't have to. Thye build the best cars for most people - the ones who realize they're fundamentally to get you where you want to go without costing so much it precludes having a life and without having to get greasy under the hood every week. Boring as it may be I'd easily pick the new LS over the new Korean-looking S-Class. It's cheaper, more advanced, and will most likely be far less trouble. Over a Quattroporte, no - that car has too much character, though it's a stupid preference and tens of thousands will agree with me. You can always establish design studios for broader appeal, but it's tough when you have nothing else, no money, and your future depends on that alone. Let's face it - most cars are boring nowadays. Very few have any feel or connection to the road and all they can do is put big engines in to convince buyers they're sporting. Toyota is starting to realize the importance of design and I can't think of a safer place for Subaru to be.

GM buying them was much scarier to me.

I just hope they have Subaru sell that damn diesel so I can put one in an '84 hardtop.

entirelyturbo · Post by **entirelyturbo** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:02 pm

In posting this on another forum, I also stated that the only corporate relationship that I think has not gone bad was Ford buying Aston Martin. Aston Martin still makes beautiful, well-engineered cars, and use little, if any, Ford underpinnings.

Jaguar, Volvo, Land Rover/Range Rover, and Mazda though...

I should add that Toyota owns what used to be the maximum legal amount of Daihatsu, slightly over 50%, and as I understand Daihatsu still mostly does their thing only with a much larger bank account. The only thing is though, Daihatsu sells a Camry rebadge called the Altis. I hope we don't see a Subaru Camry

.

Richard · Post by **Richard** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:40 am

I never got the whole idea of selling the same exact car with just the name and a few cosmetic pieces changed. What's the difference between a Matrix and a Vibe? Not much at all, besides the perception that they're built by different people. The '00 Corollas and Chevy prisms were she same damned car - there was even japanese writing under the hood of a supposedly American car. All this redundancy with American automakers is rediculous.

All I can say for Toyota is don't fuck up such a good thing. Improve the small things, but keep things pretty much the way they are. I could care less about AWD Camrys or sharing hybrid technology, but I'd puke up a kidney if I EVER saw a 'yota motor in a scooby.

555BCTurbo · Post by **555BCTurbo** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:34 am

Richard wrote:
All I can say for Toyota is don't fuck up such a good thing. Improve the small things, but keep things pretty much the way they are. I could care less about AWD Camrys or sharing hybrid technology, but I'd puke up a kidney if I EVER saw a 'yota motor in a scooby.

No Kidding!

Toyota makes great cars...but the reason that I like Subarus is because they have so much character and are different from all of the other Nippon auto manufacturers...

I never wanna see an STi with "VVTi" written on the back...

Richard · Post by **Richard** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:25 am

<--- loses dinner.

Subtle · Post by **Subtle** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:16 pm

Toyota is one of the few big companies in the world with a AAA credit rating, so it is very well managed.

When it comes to engineering, the best way to design a front-wheel drive car is with a boxer engine. No doubts about this.

The problem with the change to fwd decades ago is that the main manufacturers then took an existing in-line engine and twisted it around.

They should have taken the expensive hit and developed a flat 4, such as Subaru did, as well as Alfa Romeo in the early 1970s.

With Toyota's marketing power there could be substantial increase in the number of fwd cars with the appropriate engine.

scottzg · Post by **scottzg** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:43 am

Subtle wrote:When it comes to engineering, the best way to design a front-wheel drive car is with a boxer engine. No doubts about this.

The problem with the change to fwd decades ago is that the main manufacturers then took an existing in-line engine and twisted it around.

how do you figure? Seems like 2 engines mated together and hanging 6-8 inches beyond the front wheels is an expensive way to get poor weight distribution. It's not as compact, either.

206er · Post by **206er** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:43 am

aaah, 70's euro fwd's.

alfasuds are cool as shit, but subtle, why would you say a flat motor is superior in the fwd layout other than for a lowered COG?
and you can see that in the alfasud it is very low:

[/img]

its possible to make a fwd transverse I4 with the transaxle in fron of the block.

wacky swedish designs:

Richard · Post by **Richard** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:36 am

My Fox has the engine non-transverse, yet it's fwd. Crazy Germans.

jnorion · Post by **jnorion** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:18 am

I had a VW Quantum that was the same way. It was nice though, it had a lot less torque steer than most FWD cars I've driven.

555BCTurbo · Post by **555BCTurbo** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:02 am

I want a Quantum GL5 Synchro!!!

the (very!) poor man's Audi

206er · Post by **206er** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:42 am

theres one for sale here right now. 5cyl 5sp synchro wagon. cool cars but WAY too rare for my taste.
can you put like an MC1(10vt) audi motor in a quantum, or are they the VW bolt pattern? 16vt would be pretty cool.

555BCTurbo · Post by **555BCTurbo** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:51 am

206er wrote:theres one for sale here right now. 5cyl 5sp synchro wagon. cool cars but WAY too rare for my taste.
can you put like an MC1(10vt) audi motor in a quantum, or are they the VW bolt pattern? 16vt would be pretty cool.

The GL5 synchro is all Audi running gear...so I would equate it to a 5000 Quattro...

so yes, the MC1 would most definately work

I think a 20 valve would be pretty tits in one of those

Subtle · Post by **Subtle** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:42 pm

Scottzg:

Beyond c g, drive shafts are of equal length, and while not perfect, a better natural balance.

That's in comparing four-cylinder engines.

jnorion · Post by **jnorion** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:22 pm

555BCTurbo wrote:
206er wrote:The GL5 synchro is all Audi running gear...so I would equate it to a 5000 Quattro...

It shares the chassis with the 4000, actually. Predecessor to the Passat.

And mine was FWD, not the Syncro version, but the engine was still mounted longitudinally.

legacycentral bbs

A forum for 89-94 BC-BF(BJ) Legacy Owners and Fans

Toyota can take over now

Toyota can take over now