Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Saturday November 22, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors > Non-Subaru News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-02-2013, 02:54 PM   #26
DeeezNuuuts83
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 34406
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southern California
Vehicle:
2006 Evolution IX
graphite gray

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by godfather2112 View Post
DeezNuutz,


I definitely understand what your saying, but disagree to some extent. If I was in charge of mitsu i'd release the following line up:

-Eclipse gst and gsx both with 245hp. The gsx would be on par with the wrx in terms of performance but leaving weak ends so it doesn't compete with the evo (brakes, tranny, etc)

-3000gt vr4. With the old 3000gt being more of a sport touring car, I would do the same again. Give it 350-400hp, make it more of a "premium" car that older men want to cruise the freeways the mountain passes. It wouldnt handle like the evo or compete in the same category. It would hopefully capture a older demographic. It would also have a higher price tag.

-Evo. This could be left as it, as its a self sustaining car. It has its followers and those that bounce between subaru and mitsu.

Galant- Just make this car your nicer eco car. Use this model to capture the accord and camry crowd

Mirage- this is your bottom of the barrel car. It would compete with carolla and similar.

Mitsubishi would need to higher a new marketing team and refresh the company in my opinion. I would highly structure my commercials after the extremely successful Dominos commercials. If they can come on tv and say we realized our companies quality sucked, and we fixed the problems, come in and test drive the new mitsu.... I think you would put mitsu back on track. Something like "mitsubishi... reborn".

The problem with doing this, is of course R&D for new cars takes a lot f money. Money that mitsubishi probably doesnt have. But if they did, I really think they could emerge as a really powerful player in the car industry.
A lot of that would work in theory. The problem is that Mitsubishi seems to fumble in every way possible outside of the Evo (which of course still has room for improvement outside of the performance category). Outside of marketing, they just need some people with common sense in their design studios. I can't believe how ugly the upcoming Galant and Outlander look.

Mitsubishi as a whole has the cake to do it, but they likely won't want to invest too much money, so we're likely not going to see any new performance engines outside of variations of the 4B11. I'd vote against them making a 3000GT successor at this time (since it would likely be well over $50,000, and spending that kind of money on a Mitsubishi isn't going to be well-received until they turn their overall image around), but a more performance-oriented Eclipse would be cool. That brings me to my next thought...

With the success of Toyota and Subaru working together to make the GT86/FR-S/BRZ, I always wondered what it would be like if Honda and Mitsubishi worked on something together, both being competitors with Toyota and Subaru, respectively. Honda's current lineup is pretty depressing from an enthusiast viewpoint, but they did make the NSX and S2000 before. So maybe people from those teams can do some work with Mitsubishi (who obviously has a pretty good grasp on making turbocharged four-cylinders and AWD) and put their ideas together. Perhaps a Honda-branded coupe (rather than Acura, which seems to cater more toward luxury anyway) and then a Mitsubishi-branded coupe, with a RWD GS-T model and a more top-of-the-line AWD GSX with all of the Evo goodies, clearly at a premium. Even the RWD models could still get S-AYC. A turbo'd motor would definitely give it an edge over the FR-S/BRZ.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
DeeezNuuuts83 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2013, 03:12 PM   #27
gggplaya
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 139444
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PA
Vehicle:
2008 Impreza
Dark Gray

Default

This will sell big to inner-city dwellers. You don't need a big engine for around town, a compact hatch is also easier to park coupled with a low price tag, it should be a hit.

Just don't test drive it with the A/C on.

Also, mitsubishi doesn't need to add more cool cars to the market. Sales are too low on cool cars to bolster your company. Mitsubishi needs more cars like this, more bread and butter cars that sell in volume but never really make the cool press releases, magazine covers, or big 3 page spread in car and driver.
gggplaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2013, 03:12 PM   #28
godfather2112
Papi Chulo
Moderator
 
Member#: 53794
Join Date: Jan 2004
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle
Vehicle:
.... OT Supplement
Testing Division.

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83 View Post
A lot of that would work in theory. The problem is that Mitsubishi seems to fumble in every way possible outside of the Evo (which of course still has room for improvement outside of the performance category). Outside of marketing, they just need some people with common sense in their design studios. I can't believe how ugly the upcoming Galant and Outlander look.

Mitsubishi as a whole has the cake to do it, but they likely won't want to invest too much money, so we're likely not going to see any new performance engines outside of variations of the 4B11. I'd vote against them making a 3000GT successor at this time (since it would likely be well over $50,000, and spending that kind of money on a Mitsubishi isn't going to be well-received until they turn their overall image around), but a more performance-oriented Eclipse would be cool. That brings me to my next thought...

With the success of Toyota and Subaru working together to make the GT86/FR-S/BRZ, I always wondered what it would be like if Honda and Mitsubishi worked on something together, both being competitors with Toyota and Subaru, respectively. Honda's current lineup is pretty depressing from an enthusiast viewpoint, but they did make the NSX and S2000 before. So maybe people from those teams can do some work with Mitsubishi (who obviously has a pretty good grasp on making turbocharged four-cylinders and AWD) and put their ideas together. Perhaps a Honda-branded coupe (rather than Acura, which seems to cater more toward luxury anyway) and then a Mitsubishi-branded coupe, with a RWD GS-T model and a more top-of-the-line AWD GSX with all of the Evo goodies, clearly at a premium. Even the RWD models could still get S-AYC. A turbo'd motor would definitely give it an edge over the FR-S/BRZ.
I agree. They could not effectively make and sell the 3000gt with current track record. I think they are so focused on saving every dime possible that they are neglecting building quality cars. I really do feel like they are the GM motors of Japan.

The idea of a partnership with honda would be exciting. Use honda tech for a rwd chasis and suspension with a mitsu turbo 4 cylinder motor. I would probably jump on a car like that. I think the brz/frs is really missing a huge market by not offering a turbo variant. Even if you turbo the current motor, you get small gains in hp/tq and reliability... well its unknown but we can speculate its not good.

I think that the car manufacturers believe everyone wants these bland and boring enviro friendly cars. Im not saying there is not a market for it (look at the prius and others), but there is a huge demographic that still wants that driver oriented feel. I think people who are not car enthusiast even want that.
godfather2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2013, 03:29 PM   #29
DeeezNuuuts83
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 34406
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southern California
Vehicle:
2006 Evolution IX
graphite gray

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by godfather2112 View Post
The idea of a partnership with honda would be exciting. Use honda tech for a rwd chasis and suspension with a mitsu turbo 4 cylinder motor. I would probably jump on a car like that. I think the brz/frs is really missing a huge market by not offering a turbo variant. Even if you turbo the current motor, you get small gains in hp/tq and reliability... well its unknown but we can speculate its not good.
I wonder why Honda and Mitsubishi didn't at least sit at the table together once word got out about Toyota and Subaru working together. Anyway, it would be intriguing to say the least. I'd have said it would be pointless at this point (since we all assumed that a turbocharged 86 would be on the way), but most reports now indicate that a more performance-oriented variant may remain NA and have somewhere around 240-250 hp, which is good, but a lot of people really do want a turbocharged engine in that kind of package. As good as the FR-S/BRZ twins are, visit the Genesis Coupe forums. There are plenty of people there who went for that car instead simply due to having more firepower, even if it doesn't drive as nicely through the bends.

My only concern is that while a lot of other manufacturers are switching to smaller engines with turbos, a bit reason for that is because they get better gas mileage rather than it being a "better" platform (though that is sometimes the case). I don't know if it's just because Mitsubishi doesn't know how to make a good ratio for its highest gears, but their turbocharged motors just don't seem to get anything better than average mpg. Yes, I realize that they are having the duty of powering a heavier car with AWD, but today's Evos are rated at about the same mpg that the GT-R gets, and that also has AWD... and another couple hundred pounds to lug around but with around 250 hp more. This will need to be addressed, one way or another.
DeeezNuuuts83 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2013, 03:46 PM   #30
gggplaya
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 139444
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PA
Vehicle:
2008 Impreza
Dark Gray

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by godfather2112 View Post
I agree. They could not effectively make and sell the 3000gt with current track record. I think they are so focused on saving every dime possible that they are neglecting building quality cars. I really do feel like they are the GM motors of Japan.

The idea of a partnership with honda would be exciting. Use honda tech for a rwd chasis and suspension with a mitsu turbo 4 cylinder motor. I would probably jump on a car like that. I think the brz/frs is really missing a huge market by not offering a turbo variant. Even if you turbo the current motor, you get small gains in hp/tq and reliability... well its unknown but we can speculate its not good.

I think that the car manufacturers believe everyone wants these bland and boring enviro friendly cars. Im not saying there is not a market for it (look at the prius and others), but there is a huge demographic that still wants that driver oriented feel. I think people who are not car enthusiast even want that.
The 3000gt never sold in enough volume to really make or break the company financially. So why bother making it now, when they desperately need to make money?

However the eclipse did sell very well in it's glory days (90-99). It was a cool, affordable, practical car for a young adult with no kids. Something the BRZ and FRS didn't quite hit the mark with(unless they shed about $4000 in price). If the BRZ/FRS made a slower version with the base subaru 170hp engine, regular suspension, and offered it for less than $20k, it would sell like hotcakes right now.

If mitsubishi could reinvent the eclipse again, but not make it so ugly like the current generation, keep the price at a level that competes with the focus, corolla, civic etc.. The base model having a ride, handling and performance of economy cars like the focus and civic. But offering a performance model with a stiffer suspension and turbo for brand recognition and street cred. Then the eclipse would sell like hotcakes again. They should go back to that winning formula selling roughly 200,000 eclipse/talons per year consistently from 90-99.
gggplaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2013, 03:59 PM   #31
godfather2112
Papi Chulo
Moderator
 
Member#: 53794
Join Date: Jan 2004
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle
Vehicle:
.... OT Supplement
Testing Division.

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83 View Post
I wonder why Honda and Mitsubishi didn't at least sit at the table together once word got out about Toyota and Subaru working together. Anyway, it would be intriguing to say the least. I'd have said it would be pointless at this point (since we all assumed that a turbocharged 86 would be on the way), but most reports now indicate that a more performance-oriented variant may remain NA and have somewhere around 240-250 hp, which is good, but a lot of people really do want a turbocharged engine in that kind of package. As good as the FR-S/BRZ twins are, visit the Genesis Coupe forums. There are plenty of people there who went for that car instead simply due to having more firepower, even if it doesn't drive as nicely through the bends.

My only concern is that while a lot of other manufacturers are switching to smaller engines with turbos, a bit reason for that is because they get better gas mileage rather than it being a "better" platform (though that is sometimes the case). I don't know if it's just because Mitsubishi doesn't know how to make a good ratio for its highest gears, but their turbocharged motors just don't seem to get anything better than average mpg. Yes, I realize that they are having the duty of powering a heavier car with AWD, but today's Evos are rated at about the same mpg that the GT-R gets, and that also has AWD... and another couple hundred pounds to lug around but with around 250 hp more. This will need to be addressed, one way or another.
The EVO's MPG is embarrassing. I understand its a performance oriented car, but good god. With today's technology there is no reason it should see nearly 30mpg on highway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gggplaya View Post
The 3000gt never sold in enough volume to really make or break the company financially. So why bother making it now, when they desperately need to make money?

However the eclipse did sell very well in it's glory days (90-99). It was a cool, affordable, practical car for a young adult with no kids. Something the BRZ and FRS didn't quite hit the mark with(unless they shed about $4000 in price). If the BRZ/FRS made a slower version with the base subaru 170hp engine, regular suspension, and offered it for less than $20k, it would sell like hotcakes right now.

If mitsubishi could reinvent the eclipse again, but not make it so ugly like the current generation, keep the price at a level that competes with the focus, corolla, civic etc.. The base model having a ride, handling and performance of economy cars like the focus and civic. But offering a performance model with a stiffer suspension and turbo for brand recognition and street cred. Then the eclipse would sell like hotcakes again. They should go back to that winning formula selling roughly 200,000 eclipse/talons per year consistently from 90-99.
I was unaware of how poor the 3000gt sold. I always thought it was a really col car. I think if they offered an NA eclipse around 17k and a fully loaded awd turbo for around 27k I think it would sell well.

The wrx really has a market of its own in my opinion. Its not as expensive as an evo or STI, it delivers good performance for they everyday driver and there doesnt seem to be any other awd car like it in its price range.

I was really excited to see the brz come out. But after driving in one, I was really disappointed. Yes it handles great, is small and sporty, but it just lacks any thrill in my opinion. I still think the 02 wrx gave me more thrill than the brz.

While the STI an EVO are cool cars, im just not impressed with todays options of cars for $35k and under. I want to see something new and exciting.
godfather2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2013, 04:08 PM   #32
gggplaya
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 139444
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PA
Vehicle:
2008 Impreza
Dark Gray

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by godfather2112 View Post
The EVO's MPG is embarrassing. I understand its a performance oriented car, but good god. With today's technology there is no reason it should see nearly 30mpg on highway.



I was unaware of how poor the 3000gt sold. I always thought it was a really col car. I think if they offered an NA eclipse around 17k and a fully loaded awd turbo for around 27k I think it would sell well.

The wrx really has a market of its own in my opinion. Its not as expensive as an evo or STI, it delivers good performance for they everyday driver and there doesnt seem to be any other awd car like it in its price range.

I was really excited to see the brz come out. But after driving in one, I was really disappointed. Yes it handles great, is small and sporty, but it just lacks any thrill in my opinion. I still think the 02 wrx gave me more thrill than the brz.

While the STI an EVO are cool cars, im just not impressed with todays options of cars for $35k and under. I want to see something new and exciting.
The 3000gt was a cool car, but cool doesn't make it sell. With a price tag that competes with the V8 mustang and camaro but only having a v6, the really heavy weight of the 3000gt and the lack of horsepower compared to competitors. The only thing that sold it was looks alone. The VR-4 version was quite expensive even in it's day and price well above the v8 mustang and camaro. It didn't sell well at all.
gggplaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2013, 04:28 PM   #33
Optimus Prime
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 69847
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Cybertron
Vehicle:
2010 Evolution X

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by godfather2112 View Post
The EVO's MPG is embarrassing. I understand its a performance oriented car, but good god. With today's technology there is no reason it should see nearly 30mpg on highway.
It's MPGs are poor I believe because they run the car super rich from the factory. Add about 80hp and your gas mileage jump significantly. Plus I think the gas mileage is low because they give you better gearing, tires, etc. instead of a few more MPGs. I'm sure with some really good tuning I could get close to 30MPG on the highway driving like I'm in a Prius.

Plus every time you hear about 30+ MPG sports cars lately, you start hearing about hybrid technology, automated transmissions, light weight / low horsepower, or a big V8. I for one like getting the most HP out of the smallest engine possible, so for some odd reason, a V8 Evo just wouldn't appeal to me...a fairly high revving low end torque small diesel might actually be interesting though.
Optimus Prime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2013, 04:56 PM   #34
DeeezNuuuts83
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 34406
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southern California
Vehicle:
2006 Evolution IX
graphite gray

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gggplaya View Post
However the eclipse did sell very well in it's glory days (90-99). It was a cool, affordable, practical car for a young adult with no kids. Something the BRZ and FRS didn't quite hit the mark with(unless they shed about $4000 in price). If the BRZ/FRS made a slower version with the base subaru 170hp engine, regular suspension, and offered it for less than $20k, it would sell like hotcakes right now.
While a less expensive FR-S/BRZ would definitely make it accessible to a wider range of customers, I don't think it would be a good thing. People are either content with its acceleration or they think it's slow. Going downsteam wouldn't help, and it'll just bring in more kids as clients who are likely going to draw the car away from the image they intended to project with the car and essentially turn it into a RWD Civic to be riced out by all of the high school kids.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gggplaya View Post
If mitsubishi could reinvent the eclipse again, but not make it so ugly like the current generation, keep the price at a level that competes with the focus, corolla, civic etc.. The base model having a ride, handling and performance of economy cars like the focus and civic. But offering a performance model with a stiffer suspension and turbo for brand recognition and street cred. Then the eclipse would sell like hotcakes again. They should go back to that winning formula selling roughly 200,000 eclipse/talons per year consistently from 90-99.
The problem with that is that the base engine would likely be trash (as Mitsubishi's other engines tend to not be very refined and make harsh noises when they're hustling), and unless the higher-end performance variant is marketed as a completely different model, then potential buyers may be turned off if that model isn't distinguished enough from the base model meant for mass consumption. Just look at cars like the Cobalt SS... it actually wasn't bad, but you saw too much of the regular Cobalt in it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godfather2112 View Post
The EVO's MPG is embarrassing. I understand its a performance oriented car, but good god. With today's technology there is no reason it should see nearly 30mpg on highway.
Well, I think that might still be a tall order, even though I agree that it should be better. However, a big part of the problem is that most Evo owners just don't know how to drive in a manner that gets good gas mileage. But going to 30 mpg highway is a big jump, as I think the car is currently rated at 22 mpg highway or something around that. But if the BRZ gets 30 mpg highway and weighs 600 pounds less with 91 fewer ponies, then it might be a bit too much to ask for. Perhaps an EPA certified rating of 26-28 mpg highway in a future model is more reasonable. And keep in mind that the BRZ has Prius tires. Throw on some stickier rubber like Z1s and it MIGHT take an mpg hit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godfather2112 View Post
I was unaware of how poor the 3000gt sold. I always thought it was a really col car. I think if they offered an NA eclipse around 17k and a fully loaded awd turbo for around 27k I think it would sell well.
The 3000GT was a cool car, but it was just competing with a lot of other cool cars that made it seem bloated. Remember that we had the RX-7, 300ZX and Supra at the same time. Also AWD wasn't quite as appealing on performance cars then as it is now outside of the 911 Turbo, at least in the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godfather2112 View Post
The wrx really has a market of its own in my opinion. Its not as expensive as an evo or STI, it delivers good performance for they everyday driver and there doesnt seem to be any other awd car like it in its price range.
Yeah, there's really nothing else with the same attributes, but it's almost too good. There's almost no reason to get a Ralliart (unless you just really like Mitsubishi or need the transmission if you have a lady friend who is going to use it but can't drive stick), but I've always viewed the current WRX as having about 95% of the STI's acceleration and 85% of its handling and braking but at 75% of the price while looking almost exactly the same (once they restored the widebody fenders). I can't help but think it's stolen a bit of sales away from the STI.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimus Prime View Post
It's MPGs are poor I believe because they run the car super rich from the factory. Add about 80hp and your gas mileage jump significantly. Plus I think the gas mileage is low because they give you better gearing, tires, etc. instead of a few more MPGs. I'm sure with some really good tuning I could get close to 30MPG on the highway driving like I'm in a Prius.
Yup. I broke 30 mpg once in my Evo (but I wasn't happy during the drive), hit 29 mpg twice and hit almost 28 mpg (27.98 to be exact) last month. It just takes good throttle control, really. And not driving at higher speeds while dealing with the A/C being off.
DeeezNuuuts83 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2013, 05:03 PM   #35
fredzy
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 317270
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Erie, PA
Vehicle:
15 WRX, WRB 6MT
14 CX-5

Default

I think you guys would know better than I, but hasn't Mitsubishi declared that they will remodel themselves around green/eco specialized vehicles? I haven't heard a remote whisper about performance anything from them since the EVO/Ralliart came to market. Or anything new at all in the past several years for that matter. Just the i, the Outlanders and now this Mirage. Nothing else. I'm pretty worried whether they'll be around to honor the zillion year warranty on our Outlander.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godfather2112 View Post
Mitsubishi would need to hire a new marketing team and refresh the company in my opinion. I would highly structure my commercials after the extremely successful Dominos commercials. If they can come on tv and say we realized our companies quality sucked, and we fixed the problems, come in and test drive the new mitsu.... I think you would put mitsu back on track. Something like "mitsubishi... reborn".
Haha, I don't think that marketing ploy is a good idea at all for a car company. When Domino's publicly tore up their old products, there weren't thousands of old pizzas out there in their customers hands to consider. I would feel pretty dissed if Mitsu denounced any of their legacy products, even if it wasn't mine specifically. Good or bad, the cars will be around for a long time and you have to stick by them, quality and looks be damned.
fredzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2013, 05:17 PM   #36
DeeezNuuuts83
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 34406
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southern California
Vehicle:
2006 Evolution IX
graphite gray

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredzy View Post
I think you guys would know better than I, but hasn't Mitsubishi declared that they will remodel themselves around green/eco specialized vehicles? I haven't heard a remote whisper about performance anything from them since the EVO/Ralliart came to market. Or anything new at all in the past several years for that matter. Just the i, the Outlanders and now this Mirage. Nothing else. I'm pretty worried whether they'll be around to honor the zillion year warranty on our Outlander.
There was a video that came out within the past couple of months of an i-MIEV Evolution, the same car that Mitsubishi displayed at this past Mitsubishi Owners Day in Cypress. It looked pretty bad ass in the video, perhaps they're showcasing some electric AWD performance that might find its way in a production car.
DeeezNuuuts83 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 09:51 AM   #37
cannedtuna
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 286661
Join Date: Jun 2011
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: NJ/TX
Default

Mitsubishi clearly wants to follow the current trend and aim for higher MPG's. I just fear that this may be a little too late. They need consider making a car that is a good alternative to whats being offered by say Ford or Toyota. The Mirage could be that car, but they have to be serious....this car cannot get the job done. Mitsubishi used to be the kings of turbocharged vehicles and they need to use that know how to build a 200 or so hp car, that gets decent MPG's, and comes equipped with a tech package that is on par with something being offered by Honda/Toyota/Hyundai-KIA. It really starts with one car, and as much as I'm clamoring to see what the next Evolution will offer I know that a new EVO will not change anything for Mitsubishi here in the US.
cannedtuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 02:10 PM   #38
DeeezNuuuts83
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 34406
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southern California
Vehicle:
2006 Evolution IX
graphite gray

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cannedtuna View Post
Mitsubishi clearly wants to follow the current trend and aim for higher MPG's.
It's not really a "trend" as much as it is a requirement to be in compliance with the CAFE standards/regulations on mpg that will apply in the near future.
DeeezNuuuts83 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 02:41 PM   #39
gggplaya
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 139444
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PA
Vehicle:
2008 Impreza
Dark Gray

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83 View Post
While a less expensive FR-S/BRZ would definitely make it accessible to a wider range of customers, I don't think it would be a good thing. People are either content with its acceleration or they think it's slow. Going downsteam wouldn't help, and it'll just bring in more kids as clients who are likely going to draw the car away from the image they intended to project with the car and essentially turn it into a RWD Civic to be riced out by all of the high school kids.
I don't know about being riced out, but that's the whole point is finding younger buyers. Face it, i'm 29 years old with a wife and baby now. I can't ever buy a BRZ or FRS unless it's my secondary vehicle. I don't even think a reverse carseat would fit in the backseat, and no way i would put it up front. So you need to swing your demographic to younger buyers who can still get a 2 door coupe as their main car. The whole point of the eclipse 1g and 2g is amount of power under the hood, it weighed the same as the brz but with 140hp. It simply just has to make the owner look cool and score chicks. Only other guys will notice a lack of power, 170hp is plenty enough for a 2800lb car. The volume sales of eclipses were the lower horsepower RS and GS models. But the lower volume GST and GSX gave it some serious credibility as a sports car. Again the turbo models weren't there to make money, they are there to sell the base model cars in high volume. You can make $1000 on a car sale initially, then make $5000 on the car over the next 6 years in financing. Volume sales and factory financing makes a company. Low volume sports cars aren't where you should be trying to make money. Sure you can add extra to your companies bottom line, but that's not how you should sustain your business.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83 View Post
The problem with that is that the base engine would likely be trash (as Mitsubishi's other engines tend to not be very refined and make harsh noises when they're hustling), and unless the higher-end performance variant is marketed as a completely different model, then potential buyers may be turned off if that model isn't distinguished enough from the base model meant for mass consumption. Just look at cars like the Cobalt SS... it actually wasn't bad, but you saw too much of the regular Cobalt in it.
The Colbalt in it's base form is a dull looking bland family car with 2 doors. The eclipse was never this. The base model eclipse still looked like a sports car. So you really can't compare the cobalt to the eclipse. The cobalt ss only added nicer wheels and a big wing for styling, maybe some subtle ground skirts. But putting tons a makeup on an ugly woman still won't make me sleep with her, she's still ugly. But even then, the cobalt still sold 200,000 units in 2007 which is where mitsu needs to be.
gggplaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 04:42 PM   #40
DeeezNuuuts83
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 34406
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southern California
Vehicle:
2006 Evolution IX
graphite gray

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gggplaya View Post
I don't know about being riced out, but that's the whole point is finding younger buyers. Face it, i'm 29 years old with a wife and baby now. I can't ever buy a BRZ or FRS unless it's my secondary vehicle. I don't even think a reverse carseat would fit in the backseat, and no way i would put it up front. So you need to swing your demographic to younger buyers who can still get a 2 door coupe as their main car. The whole point of the eclipse 1g and 2g is amount of power under the hood, it weighed the same as the brz but with 140hp. It simply just has to make the owner look cool and score chicks. Only other guys will notice a lack of power, 170hp is plenty enough for a 2800lb car. The volume sales of eclipses were the lower horsepower RS and GS models. But the lower volume GST and GSX gave it some serious credibility as a sports car. Again the turbo models weren't there to make money, they are there to sell the base model cars in high volume.
But it's a delimma that every company has to consider when having different trim levels with very different performance but without much visual distinction. In the example you gave, yes, the GS-T and GSX did provide the street cred for the Eclipse platform, but that went straight into the heads of RS and GS owners who tried to bridge the performance gap with a GReddy exhaust and drove around like idiots and dragged down the overall image of the car and likely turned some serious buyers away to not be associated with that stigma. On one hand, that did not make the Eclipse any less good looking (as I still think the 97-99 Eclipses in particular are some of the best-looking Mitsubishis to ever reach our shores), but I'm sure owners did not want a label attached to them.

That's what I'm talking about with having an even less powerful but more downstream base model of the FR-S/BRZ and why I referred to such a model as becoming essentially a RWD Civic. That will knock a few thousand off of its base price and make it accessible to that younger crowd who will account for a significant portion of its sales. Expect more ricing out, more incidents (violations and accidents) that will end up in the insurance rates for it increasing even more and more unenforced stupidity behind the wheel by such drivers. Obviously a lower asking price does not mean that only kids will buy it, as in your case it will make it a more likely option for a second car for people who have families and big boy responsiblities but not necessarily a massive salary, but that will likely be a much smaller percentage of the buyers who would then find the car accessible. But at the same time, it wouldn't happen anyway, since it's pretty much getting too close to the Scion tC's territory in terms of price, which I'd bet is probably more profitable for Toyota, plus they want to preserve the FR-S's image as their sports car. And like I said before, even with 200 hp, most enthusiasts either think it's just right or not enough. Less firepower will basically make it an image car rather than being an enthusiast car (and the Miata becomes an option), kind of like the very first Boxster that got labeled as a hairdresser's car for those who wanted a Porsche but couldn't afford a 911. Obviously that isn't the case anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gggplaya View Post
You can make $1000 on a car sale initially, then make $5000 on the car over the next 6 years in financing. Volume sales and factory financing makes a company. Low volume sports cars aren't where you should be trying to make money. Sure you can add extra to your companies bottom line, but that's not how you should sustain your business.
I agree that volume is what helps a company profit, but you don't necessarily need a volume seller of each vehicle in the lineup... that's what the rest of the Scion lineup is for, along with cars like the Corolla and Yaris that are relatively simple and easy to produce. The "low volume sports cars" that are discussing weren't necessarily to generate truckloads of profit, and I think that Toyota is smart enough to not try to figure out ways to maximize profit through diluting the car, but they're not ignoring ways to expand it either, as there had been talks of a convertible version as well being in the pipeline.

However, factory financing rarely generates that kind of money for vehicles in this price range unless the customer either has a really bad credit rating or put zero money down... or both. There are clients like that but they do not account for the majority, and in those situations they likely would not be good candidates for a $25k car that has no room for bargaining. Additionally, some people pay cash and some people finance through other means, like through their own banks or through credit unions, both of whom will likely have better financing rates anyway. It's unlikely that Toyota will offer special APRs that are way better for this kind of a car that clearly has no trouble selling itself. Additionally, Mitsubishi has been burned badly in the past with some financing specials that they offered in the US in the past, most of which didn't generate profit through financing anyway (i.e. 0% with $0 down), so it's likely not one of their big generators of profit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gggplaya View Post
The Colbalt in it's base form is a dull looking bland family car with 2 doors. The eclipse was never this. The base model eclipse still looked like a sports car. So you really can't compare the cobalt to the eclipse. The cobalt ss only added nicer wheels and a big wing for styling, maybe some subtle ground skirts. But putting tons a makeup on an ugly woman still won't make me sleep with her, she's still ugly. But even then, the cobalt still sold 200,000 units in 2007 which is where mitsu needs to be.
I agree, and perhaps the Cobalt was not a perfect analogy. But the point was that there are going to be buyers who may not want the top-of-the-line product worth talking about if it looked 98% like the craptastic base model. Obviously a properly designed Eclipse would still look nice even when going with the bottom-feeder model, but if you're going with the performance-oriented model that has a price tag of $5-10k higher, you'd still expect some significant differences. Look at the 3-Series... the base 328i coupe is handsome, but if the M3 looked just like it, I'm sure that a few people might have wanted more differentiation than what's beneath the surface to further justify signing a check over for that amount. But that can be avoided by just reserving that nameplate for something a bit more special not intended to be accessible to everyone who earns more than minimum wage.
DeeezNuuuts83 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 12:11 AM   #41
Ysidro
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 197418
Join Date: Dec 2008
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: New England
Vehicle:
07 WRX Ltd
The Mighty Evo;Fun CRZ

Default

Quote:
They’re cool. They’re different. They make thrummy little sounds.
Really? They look ordinary to me. Infact, it looks outdated. It looks like a cross breed between a previous Nissan Versa and Yaris hatchback. And the hideous wheel cap! Autozone sells one that look ten times sportier. How are you going to sell a 70+ hp car looking like that. At least make it look intersting. Gees...No wonder mitsu fails.
Ysidro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 11:21 AM   #42
heavyD
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 194216
Join Date: Nov 2008
Chapter/Region: W. Canada
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Vehicle:
2013 STI Sport-tech

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gggplaya View Post
If mitsubishi could reinvent the eclipse again, but not make it so ugly like the current generation, keep the price at a level that competes with the focus, corolla, civic etc.. The base model having a ride, handling and performance of economy cars like the focus and civic. But offering a performance model with a stiffer suspension and turbo for brand recognition and street cred. Then the eclipse would sell like hotcakes again. They should go back to that winning formula selling roughly 200,000 eclipse/talons per year consistently from 90-99.
I agree with this. Im not sure how many people know but the Eclipse was the biggest selling sport compact of the 90's. It outsold the Celica, Integra, Probe, 240SX, Prelude. When the Eclipse was at it's pinnacle so was Mitsubishi in the US. Some of the most creative and fun cars of the 90's came from Mitsubishi dealers in the 3000GT, Eclipse, Galant VR4 then Daimler Chrysler came in and stiffled their creativity and the 2000's spawned incredibly boring and anonymous vehicles and when you are a small player in the automotive market you cannot afford to be anonymous or you become Suzuki or Isuzu.

I don't disagree with Mitsubishi going back to small, fuel efficient cars as they are good at it. However then need to bring back the Eclipse but with the spirit of the original. It needs to be go back to being a small, exciting, capable sport compact that is affordable. $35k EVO's aren't enough to bring people into the dealerships. They need an affordable sporty car to resonate with younger buyers like what the WRX did for Subaru in 2002.
heavyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 11:46 AM   #43
DeeezNuuuts83
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 34406
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southern California
Vehicle:
2006 Evolution IX
graphite gray

Default

^ It's not only the fault of Daimler Chrysler. Their California design studio really messed up a lot of cars with their stupid design philosophy.
DeeezNuuuts83 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 01:50 PM   #44
Optimus Prime
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 69847
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Cybertron
Vehicle:
2010 Evolution X

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by heavyD View Post
$35k EVO's aren't enough to bring people into the dealerships. They need an affordable sporty car to resonate with younger buyers like what the WRX did for Subaru in 2002.
35K is the new 20K. Look at fully loaded regular family sedans...a fully loaded Accord Sedan with the factory body kit is $36,391. An Evo is cheap by relative standards and it already resonates with younger buyers. Besides, younger buyers don't want a cheap sports car, they want Audi A4s and BMW 3 series. So what will bring people in to mitsu dealership? A $28,000 good looking sedan with leather and nice appointments will bring people in to the dealers.

Look at what Kia is doing with the Optima. It looks expensive for what is, has nice features and it got people over the name Kia (and again starts at 21, but loaded 35). People want cheap luxury and that's what Mitsu needs to do. The Outlander Sport is selling well because it looks good, has a ton of features and is inexpensive. What else does mitsu have that fits that bill? Nothing.
Optimus Prime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 02:19 PM   #45
DeeezNuuuts83
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 34406
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southern California
Vehicle:
2006 Evolution IX
graphite gray

Default

That's what the Galant is for, but unfortunately Mitsubishi can't seem to get that car right. Additionally their non-Evo motors lack refinement, so they'd need to make a lot of big changes.

That's not to say that I disagree with you though, it's just not very likely for Mitsubishi to suddenly get their stuff together and make a good looking sedan that is competitive within its segment outside of the Evo.
DeeezNuuuts83 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 08:50 PM   #46
Optimus Prime
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 69847
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Cybertron
Vehicle:
2010 Evolution X

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83 View Post
That's what the Galant is for, but unfortunately Mitsubishi can't seem to get that car right. Additionally their non-Evo motors lack refinement, so they'd need to make a lot of big changes.

That's not to say that I disagree with you though, it's just not very likely for Mitsubishi to suddenly get their stuff together and make a good looking sedan that is competitive within its segment outside of the Evo.
Hyundai (and to a lesser extent Kia due to platform sharing) did it. I think the Galant didn't do well because basically the Lancer is basically the Galant now (in Japan, the Lancer is the Galant Fortis) and the upsizing of the Lancer basically pushed the Galant out. The Lancer is too small of a car here to replace the Galant, hence no mainstream product offering. I think Mitsubishi has a one market strategy (Asia) and they try to apply it to the rest of the world.
Optimus Prime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 06:52 PM   #47
DeeezNuuuts83
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 34406
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southern California
Vehicle:
2006 Evolution IX
graphite gray

Default

I can see that, but the upsizing of the Lancer doesn't really explain why they haven't made a halfway decent Galant in a decade.
DeeezNuuuts83 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 02:39 AM   #48
imprezaL2345
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 108188
Join Date: Feb 2006
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: VB yo.
Vehicle:
1993 Impreza L 1.8T
Lotus Storm Titanium

Default

bring back awd eclipse, starion and 3000gt. dont mess them up
imprezaL2345 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 02:44 AM   #49
Otobot
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 306844
Join Date: Jan 2012
Default

A turbo S-AWC eclipse would be great!
Otobot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 09:13 AM   #50
cannedtuna
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 286661
Join Date: Jun 2011
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: NJ/TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by imprezaL2345 View Post
bring back awd eclipse, starion and 3000gt. dont mess them up

RWD Turbo...I would love to own one.
cannedtuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.