Thread 28546543

They need to to ditch the boxer enginer and go fwd like everyone else.

1- There's nothing wrong with the boxer engine. Every failure Subarus encounter could also be had with an I4, Subaru fucked that shit up and it has nothing to do with the config. In theory, flat-4s should be more reliable than I4s. It would cost them too much to re-engineer every car and retool every factory. They are a smallish company and keep things modular to cut costs.
2 - They sell FWDs in Japan. They could sell them here, too. But it would lead to enshittification of their AWD systems.

The main reason I lost interest in Subaru is that all their cars are ugly and pigfat.

>drop everything that makes you unique and just make fwd i4 generic shitboxes like everyone else
Terrible suggestion. This mindset is why like 80% of the current new car market is comprised of shitty generic crossovers.

>>28546543 (OP)
No they dont. Subaru has always been an unique brand for boxer engines, AWD and thats what they should forever continue to be. Kill yourself OP.
The main issue with Subaru has been is that they cheapened out on building engines by using RTV sealer instead of putting proper good quality metallic head gaskets for their engines. Second problem is Subaru continues putting CVT transmissions to their modern cars instead of offering a proper torque converter(with an automatic clutch) automatic transmission or dual clutch transmission. 3rd is that instead of taking a note from Toyota, Mazda to improve engine performance Subaru does the same mistake like Mitsubishi where they detune their engines. Good example of this the Subaru naturally aspirated 2.5liter boxer 4 which produced 185hp, the 2026 version same engine produces 180hp for better low rpm torque.

Impreza for example is becoming weaker on performance, but it becomes more expensive car because Subaru is discontinuing the base trim level.

Most of Subaru customers for decades have been buying Subaru cars for good reliability, performance, fun to drive, superior AWD system that didnt get stuck very easily on snowy roads. Also in some cases for good tow and offroading capability. Nowadays it seems like Subaru is becoming another manufacturer of boring cars for better fuel economy, no wonder why Subaru is loosing amount of customers.

keep the boxer but make 2.4/2.5 the minimum displacement. the 2.0 is completely underpowered for america anyway

>>28546583
>This mindset is why like 80% of the current new car market is comprised of shitty generic crossovers.
nah the reason for was is everybody wanting chinese money

>>28546689
>I need at least 300 HP for my 80 mph speed limit country

They need to drop the CVT and come out with a DCT WRX. Would buy that :O

horrible idea

>>28546696
They should do that. Or give it an unbreakable 6-spd like STis had.

>>28546554
>In theory, flat-4s should be more reliable than I4
expand on this

>>28546543 (OP)
Why can't the boxer engine be fwd?

Keep the boxer engine, make it a generator range-extender.
With electric motors at all four corners for power and control.

>>28547097
That's what they started out making, and still do for the Japanese market. It's only the American market that hasn't had the FWD versions since 1997.

>>28547096
I'm pretty tanked rn but flat-4s have more-balanced harmonics compared to other configs so fewer moments of imbalance and dmg, I4susually require balance shafts and such. re

>>28546543 (OP)
symmetrical awd *is* their brand. fwd would make them less than just another car
I could take or leave the boxer engine

>>28547097
low spec SVX's came FWD
>>28547100
i guess with the caveat of no balance shafts then yeah, but having double head gaskets, timing chains/belts, valve cover gaskets, impossibly difficult to access top end parts,etc
i'm just not a fan of horizontally opposed due to how annoying they can be to service in-vehicle

>>28546554
>But it would lead to enshittification of their AWD systems.
I get it, its their schtick. But also, when you see a subaru in DFW commuting to some hellhole office job, the fuck is that AWD system even doing there?

Times were simpler when they still used pushrods and FWD

>>28547111
>when you see a subaru in DFW commuting to some hellhole office job, the fuck is that AWD system even doing there?
who the fuck cares. if they sell cars without it in the states some schmuck in anchorage is going to be driving a fwd while the dipshit in dallas is still going to be driving the awd. it's just worse

>>28547122
That crosstrek looks neato, what a shame they don't offer anything in manual anymore, and outside of the WRX trimmed imprezza, nothing is even remotely fun to drive. They consider the WRX a sports car and its $60k just like a mustang.

>>28547134
To be fair I don't see many cars on the road day to day that couldn't be classed as white goods. Subaru aren't alone in not making any drivers cars, because the market wants cheap soulless appliances.

>>28546543 (OP)
I agree the boxer engine should be ditched, but not AWD. That's their main selling point. The boxer engines are less reliable, and they have to underpower their engines to not blow head gaskets, or blow their CVTs for that matter. They need more robust CVTs or just to ditch them entirely. I didn't buy a Subaru because of the CVT, and fucked up looks. They need to make their cars look more simple again, every change makes it too gawdy and worse looking. If they're gonna keep that CVT they need to make it quieter, it's way the fuck too loud. To the point you have to yell to your passenger while on the freeway, and probably damaging to your ears to have high noise exposure for prolonged times. Honestly, just ditch the CVT. Too loud, too unreliable, and not fun to drive. I can assure you they lose a lot of sales due to being underpowered and the CVTs. Great vehicle dimensions and designs otherwise.

>>28547100
That would be boxer engines, all boxers are flat but not all flats are boxers

>>28547099
Oh so that's why the early 4 wheel drive Subarus are front wheel drive in 2wd.

>>28547097
Boxers are longtitudional only, so they can't do traditional FWD layout of latitudional engine that turns the wheels without a 90 degree turn. But they still do longtitudional FWD, like Saab did back in the day. They can also do RWD in cars other than Toyobaru, but then they'd get a reputation for hooning.

>build one of the sexiest cars of all time
>realize that 9/10 guys in the world want one
>immediately start making it bloated and ugly
you just can't help the Japanese

>>28546543 (OP)
No, they NEED to get rid of their dogass CVT.

>>28547100
I4s don't have perfect balance but they don't REQUIRE balance shafts alot of the indestructible nippon I4s from the 90s people fap over don't even have balance shafts they just focused on making the rotating assembly as light as possible.

Modern I4s do have balance shafts (sometimes 2) to meet modern NVH expectations and since alot are turbo the rotating assemblies are heavier.

Instead of going downmarket into the same fwd slop as everyone else, why not upmarket subaru to the luxury segment?

Flat engines are smoother, have unique packaging and luxury buyers don't care about the higher maintenance/consumption. You will have a way more differentiated lineup compared to the other jap luxury brands.

>>28546554
Well. They are very reliable. There's a couple recall-tier ones.
t. Still driving 20 year old ej252

>>28546607
>5 less peak hp
>better low rpm torque
That sounds like it has better acceleration desu
I would have loved to see a SkyActivX boxer, then I'd do an lpg conversion. But alas.
>>28546687
The ej20 is great for turbocharging. The EE20 boxer diesel turbo is also very good, fantastic sound on UELs and has turbo upgrades available iirc

>>28546543 (OP)
literally all they have to do is bring back the 2.5 rs with an inline 4 and a six speed.

>>28547583
They tried to go upmarket multiple times and every time they got their ass kicked.

>>28546543 (OP)
They'd lose their USP with that, and they don't have the numbers to compete effectively without one.

>>28547583
>why not upmarket subaru to the luxury segment?
Thats about as Jaguar moving upmarket. Theres no 0% financing to move pickup trucks from $60k vehicles to $120,000 luxury vehicles anymore. upmarket would make no sense since Subaru sells itself as a family/lifestyle vehicle. Its supposed to be practical, reliable, and able to go across a muddy field or snow on the way to dropping off your kid at school because your lesbian wife doesn't like kids. What makes you think making a Subaru more expensive would be a good idea?

>>28546554
Any failure in a boxer is made more complicated than an i4. Sparkplugs? Hope you have small hands to get between the frame rails. Adjust valves? Two valve covers need to come off (also you need small hands!). Fuel injectors? Intake runns needs to come off. Oil pan gasket? Remove exhaust manifold. Head gaskets? Time to pull the engine!

And no, there is no way they should be more reliable: you have 4 cams for 4 cylinders which is already terribly inefficient and adds way more interfaces for things to fail. The only case when it was true was when they still used pushrods which is why you see those retrofitted for aircraft use.

Also, they literally changed the EJ255 like every other year of production when they first came out lmao.