Subaru's Latest Joke

aware

Forum Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
320
Car Year
2014
Car Model
XV 2.0i-L "Black" Edition
Transmission
6MT
The latest joke from Subaru:

subaru-wrx-leak-1.jpeg


https://www.caradvice.com.au/259326/subaru-wrx-revealed-leaked-images/


After 25 years, and 5 new Subarus, goodbye.
 
And somebody told me my new shopping trolley was ugly, geeezus!, Subaru are getting uglier with every release.

Subaru should go back to the 03 Forester and the 2000 Liberty and start all over again - MPO, but each to his own.
 
^ the accountants probably got to it!
 
I have to admit that when I first saw the SF gen Foz I thought it was absolutely ugly as sin. Now there's two of them living in our driveway.
 
If you want to stop kids from taking drugs, show them this photo and tell them this is the result from the people at Subaru taking them. Or, take them to a Subaru dealership and they can see the others. Then, show them a 22B, an 04 Liberty and an 03 Forrie and say that is what Subarus were like before they took the drugs.
 
In the 1960s, Japanese cars were appallingly styled and laughably over-complicated with ugly knobs and bumps and chrome do-dads slapped on aparently at random.

Someone send Subaru a new damn calendar for the love of Mike!
 
If this is the end product, one has to question why they bothered making a seprate WRX/STI to the Impreza. The decision to split them was the ideal opportunity to really make them stand out- like the concept car. So should this be the end result, it would be yet another example of Subaru having no direction, aimlessly changing direction like a ball in a pinball machine- rarely heading in the right direction more by sheer chance than good management, but more often going off in every direction but the right one.
 
I reckon that car design is awful these days. Not just from Subaru, either!

I am seeing more and more cars that are reminiscent of the 1966 Mazda - lots of bling; poor lines; body parts that look as if they were designed by Dr Frankenstein ...

And a complete triumph of form over utility. Even the cars touted as having unbelievably good fuel economy fail this test. Mainly because they can't ever achieve the advertised fuel economy! I saw a test of an Audi that claimed 4L/100 kms, and the drivers managed to achieve this by driving the car from Darwin to Alice Springs without using cruise control; without using the air conditioning; and with all the windows wound up ... in 40°C heat.

Even the drivers felt obliged to comment that what was the use of getting such fuel economy while sacrificing all the benefits of having such a car?

BTW, back a very long time ago, a Morris Minor 1000 achieved 127 miles per (UK) gallon in a measured and supervised test - i.e. around 2.21L/100 kms ... :poke: :poke:
 
E.J. said:
I have to admit that when I first saw the SF gen Foz I thought it was absolutely ugly as sin. Now there's two of them living in our driveway.
Click to expand...

lol. Same here, esp the square arse...not the prettiest. I love the SG with the round tail-lights :biggrin:

Rally said:
If you want to stop kids from taking drugs, show them this photo and tell them this is the result from the people at Subaru taking them
Click to expand...

Haha :rotfl:
 
I like the look. I reckon it looks much better than the current gen which has been around for the past 5 years. I certainly would buy one. I like the idea of the same 8 speed cvt that is in the new Forester XT.
The worst part is having a pissy little 1.6l in it!

I thought the same as all of you about the XV and new outback. But once you have a good look in person and driven them then you really do notice that Subaru still have that special touch compares to other compares out there. ....
My 2 cents worth anyway. ..
Can't beat the original gc8, SF and gen1/2 libs though! Classic ugly, well v built designs that started all the great cars we have now.

Edit: if any of you have seen what else is on the new car market today I'd still be going for a Subaru, take a look at some of the other rubbish from Holden, Hyundai and Nissan!
Go for a drive in a Xtrail or IX35 then take a new foz for the spin.
 
Well some people think that they should of stayed 4wd like the old l-series's. ... everyone has an opinion and no company can keep everyone happy.
 
Well, they're not selling WRX's like they used to. They sold more of my model WRX than any model before or since. In my club, the MY99 is by far the most popular model. Light, quick and easily updated with later model stuff, it is the essence of what a WRX is all about. And even guys who own later model cars almost always use the classic shape WRX as their track car.
 
taza said:
Well some people think that they should of stayed 4wd like the old l-series's
Click to expand...

If simplicity equals reliability then yes perhaps they should have!

E.J. said:
I have to admit that when I first saw the SF gen Foz I thought it was absolutely ugly as sin.
Click to expand...

I have always luv'ed the SF styling, they got right the first time!

:lildevil:


They should get back to this winning style! FTW

28vrvid.jpg



:shake:
 
Kevin said:
^ the accountants probably got to it!
Click to expand...
:lol: :twisted: :lol: :twisted:

Rally said:
If you want to stop kids from taking drugs, show them this photo and tell them this is the result from the people at Subaru taking them.
Click to expand...
I like that idea, it's brilliant :lol: :p :lol:

Rally said:
If this is the end product, one has to question why they bothered making a seprate WRX/STI to the Impreza. The decision to split them was the ideal opportunity to really make them stand out- like the concept car.
Click to expand...
I think they might have just done that. Because it stands out alright :eek::rotfl::eek:

Regards
Mr Turbo
 
idw said:
More like the engineers
Click to expand...

I would like to think most engineers have an idea of a good looking car!

But in saying that, I then thought of the some of the complete duds graduating from uni this year and I probably should retract that statement...
 
I deal with engineers constantly. I have just been asked to explain to them why their design does not comply with Australian Standard. Their specification is vague, contradictory within itself, the standard and their own drawings. It calls for the use of a product that can only be installed if every structural column of the large building is servered at the base, the building lifted and then have a small section of copper link the two ends of the structural columns together, with the ability for them to be disconnected at will. The only task they have any real ability to perform is the cut and paste. Proof reading is a concept totally alien to them. Unfortunately, this covers the majority of them, and it is getting worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top