Last post on Dec 03, 2012 at 4:46 AM
You are in the Subaru B9 Tribeca
What is this discussion about?
Subaru B9 Tribeca, Automotive News, SUV
#86 of 723 issues not addressed
Apr 30, 2007 (10:08 pm)
I did glance at the "B9 Tribeca Changes I'd Like To See" discussion and see that Subaru really hear its customers (or at least they read Edmunds.com forum ).
The major points that I take from that discussion are:
1) Underpowered engine
2) Front end styling
3) Lack of legroom for 3rd row seats
4) Poor rear visibility
5) Small gas tank
I see they addressed #4 in 2007 model, and #1 and #2 in 2008 model. Not addressed are #5 and #3.
Are there other major issues not addressed?
#87 of 723 Re: Great, Bigger Engine, More Power, Regular Gas Required....... [paisan]
May 01, 2007 (5:37 am)
That was the 1st reason, the 2nd one that sealed the deal was the horrific front end styling, small gas tank AND rough on the eyes, not a good combo.
#88 of 723 Re: Great, Bigger Engine, More Power, Regular Gas Required....... [paisan]
May 01, 2007 (9:15 am)
My calculator doesn't have that many numbers.
#89 of 723 Re: issues not addressed [movedor]
May 01, 2007 (9:17 am)
Given this is the MMM (mid-model makeover) they managed to change an impressive amount. Usually it's a new front and rear bumper and shuffled option packages.
For 3 they at least made access to the 3rd row easier. Also, for the 5 passenger models, they removed that stopper that didn't let the seat go back all the way, which prevents crushing feet on the 5+2 model. The 5 seater never needed it.
Saw a preview on Car & Driver yesterday (it's gone - embargo?) and they STILL are saying the 5+2 has less room in the 2nd row than the 5 seater does, so they still don't get it!
They did say if you close your eyes you'd believe you were in a BMW X5 (sweet!) and loved the engine and handling.
#90 of 723 Re: Great, Bigger Engine, More Power, Regular Gas Required....... [paisan]
May 01, 2007 (10:52 am)
I'll let you do the math on that bill.
If you want to play, then you must pay....
#91 of 723 Re: Great, Bigger Engine, More Power, Regular Gas Required....... [xwesx]
May 01, 2007 (5:53 pm)
Hee, agreed, I never complain. Put $400 worth in and will gladly put another $400 in when the time comes.
#92 of 723 Re: issues not addressed [ateixeira]
May 02, 2007 (10:03 pm)
Certainly lack of 3rd row seat legroom cannot be solved without a longer body, which to me would make Tribeca less agile and less atractive for my needs.
Wow, high torque at low RPMs is certainly welcome for Tribeca, now say you can compare to X5 is going a bit too far.
But if it is real, sign me up. I already starting to build strategy to convince my wife to trade our 2006 Outback for 2008 Tribeca when it goes out of warranty:-). We test drove the Tribeca in 2005, but we hit a few deal breakers: poor rear visibility, no memory seats, premium gas.
May 03, 2007 (6:39 am)
Actually, it wasn't me that made the comparison, it was Car & Driver. They said if your eyes were closed you might think you were driving a BMW X5 3.0i.
Funny thing is I don't like the X5 that much. I found it a bit too heavy and cumbersome. I much, much prefer the 5 series wagon.
I drove the previous generation of both, however. Back then the X5 didn't offer a 3rd row, so picking the wagon was a no-brainer, as it also has a bigger cargo floor. The new X5 offers a 3rd row and would meet my needs better.
#94 of 723 Re: X5 [ateixeira]
May 03, 2007 (9:11 am)
I think it's safe to say that a wagonóof any brandówill out-handle it's SUV brother. I'm sure an Outback wagon will out-handle a Tribeca too, as it sits lower to the ground.
#95 of 723 Re: X5 [rsholland]
May 03, 2007 (10:34 am)
However, a 5er wagon is quite roomy. It felt roomier inside than the X5.
I wouldn't say that about the Outback. It's not as wide, the 2nd row on the Tribeca is a lot wider and it feels roomier, plus it offers a 3rd row.
Hence the compromise is worth it.
With the old X5, it wasn't. You didn't really get anything besides a high view point.