WHY Has Subaru Flourished And Mitsubishi AND Suzuki Have Failed In The U.S. Market?

Subaru has a distinct segment. It has the crunchy granola crowd in the Northeast covered.

And in Colorado

Oh come on! You're describing the Seattle area to a tee! Nothing but granola crunching, earth shoe wearers around here! :) Lots of Subarus and Volvos...

Subaru...A well supported consistant strategy backed by reliable broad product offerings (4WD, boxer engine, rock solid reliability).

Mitsu & Suzuki...inconsistant strategy, undersupported marketing, poor quality, lack of clear brand image, muddled product offerings.

Available AWD on even its small sedans, hatches etc.Flat 4 engine has been dead reliable.Earlier cars had a more rugged quality that Subaru was able to exploit in the snowy regions of the country. Probably one of if not the best AWD technology of any car company.As PUPPROUD has said both Mitsubishi and Suzuki produced and inconsistant marketing strategy. Mitsubishi at one point offered luxury high performance with the 3000 GT etc. but did not stay with it. Only the EVO had it. However when the original eclipse came out it had performance AWD as well. Successive models become softer and only FWD. Suzuki has offered more engaing models to drive in Europe and other markets but not in the US.The Kisashi was an honest attempt to offer a good driving FWD and AWD car here. However by that time they had no marketing funds or anymore development money to make improvements to the car.Large parts of the country didn't even know it existed. A real shame. Subaru on the other hand stuck it out with the reliable but rugged AWD concept. Not the most exciting but it become the go to car if you wanted a Toyota sedan but had to have AWD and did not want an SUV.

ive never had a subaru, ( definitely wouldnt mind the sti ) but i had the 3000gt SL back in the day.
i loved the way the car looked and drove when it was working... so many damn electrical problems though. right now, besides the evo, the mitsu lineup i feel is trash.
i rented an eclipse once and went back to hertz and got the chrysler sebring which felt like a bentley after it. the eclipse was just horrible.
they need to reincarnate the 3000gt.

Subaru flourished for several reasons. They focused on a niche and incorporated all wheel drive in reasonably priced cars and took it in new directions with the Outback. This technology was "reinforced or endorsed" by a luxury car maker, Audi which then lent more credibility to Subaru and provided an alternative for those who couldn't afford an Audi. MItsubishi had no unique products and got lost in the Toyota, Nissan world. Suzuki had a couple interesting small jeep type products but that was it. When it comes to building the brand, Subaru was consistent and low key. They played to your emotion and became known for supporting causes, etc. They were a good corporate citizen. Mitsubishi was all over the map and at one time they had commercials with club kids heading into a tunnel going to NYC to party. Very limited focus. Finally, they have great service. I had a Mercedes ML and traded it for an Outback and my local dealer(Stivers in Decatur, GA) has service that equals the MB dealer I used. I drive up and they check you in at the car, just like MB. The Outback is fun to drive, gets good mileage and has all the luxury one needs.

(1)Mitsubishi...Even in Japan, NOT considered a "Major Player" Shuttering the entire auto division WAS considerd, but the "Parent Company" would "Loose Face" Just another company with NO clear vision of what THEY want to be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Heavy_Industries

(2)Suzuki...a Real Shame, but it's their own fault...putting Suzuki badges on Daewoos (Or is it GM Korea?) World renown SUV's & Crap Cars. The SX4 was one of their own designs (developed with FIAT) and wasn't half bad...Just not enough money fo advertising

Long Answer:

Suzuki really could not have been considered a major player in the U.S. Domestic Car market, commercial market yes.

While Mitsubishi's fortunes have been on a constant downward spiral since they destroyed the Eclipse, neutered and jumbo sized the Galant, and lost the Mirage.

Subaru has always been a niche player that that has worked to retain and grow its customer base. The importation of a non-neutered Imprezza, the introduction of a nimble Forrester(original), memorable marketing campaign for the soft and wide friendly outback, along with the brand's amazing reputation for quality have paid off for them.

Short Answer:

Subaru's, whether justified or not, are perceived to be more reliable than the other two brands.

Answer: lack of flash or identity.

Suzuki's last great hit was the Suzuki Samurai and its "*beep* *beep* HI!" branding image: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNMDuW0dQXA

The car was innovative and fun. Performance sucked, safety was deplorable, but every high school and college co-ed wanted one.

Mitsubishi has never had a "Samurai" moment. Its cars appealed only to the fan-boy gear head crowd, because it was mostly unattractive, never ever an equation for success; don't care how awesome the car performs on paper, if it's ugly, it's a fail.

Mitsubish/Suzuki needs to study what Fiat did with the 500 - create a car that "appeared" fun and entailed a lifestyle of youth and carefree frivolity. Neither car has any branding identity that's appealing.

Suzuki needs to revisit why the Samurai was a success and study closely what happened when it got away from that image.

Mitsubishi needs to hire a user experience team from California to come up with a concept car that has the panache of what Subaru/Toyota did with their amazingly awesome sports coupe venture.

The recipe isn't hard, finding the right leadership team with the vision to execute is very hard.