Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Subaru Tribeca 2008



  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Well, similar styling for the 06-07, and those two models pretty much lead the class in fuel efficiency. I can see why they'd be compared.

    Just because gas stations are abundant doesn't mean I want to stop more frequently. Most of the time the kids are sleeping, and if I stop they some times wake up.

    Plus, I just would like to stop less often for gas, period. I'm not talking about one long trip, I mean having to stop 37 times per year instead of 50 times per year (the difference between 300 vs. 400 mile range).
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    I guess I'm so used to driving about 20k+ miles that I don't even think about stopping for gas anymore, combine that with filling up the race car on the trailer or the boat on the trailer... :)

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I hear ya! Can't imagine how much gas the boat goes through.

    When it was just me, it didn't matter. I'll stop anywhere, any time. Mid night in a bad neighborhood? No problem, just tip the crack user that helps fill her up. :D

    With the kids, though, I hate stopping.
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    A week ago I put in 150 gal of 87 at 2.65/gal

    I'll let you do the math on that bill.

  • movedormovedor Posts: 65
    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 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?
  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    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.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    My calculator doesn't have that many numbers. ;)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    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! :mad:

    They did say if you close your eyes you'd believe you were in a BMW X5 (sweet!) and loved the engine and handling. :shades:
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,391
    I'll let you do the math on that bill.

    If you want to play, then you must pay.... :P
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    Hee, agreed, I never complain. Put $400 worth in and will gladly put another $400 in when the time comes. :)

  • movedormovedor Posts: 65
    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.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    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.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,661
    I think it's safe to say that a wagon—of any brand—will 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.

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587

    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.
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    IIRC AWD was not an option on the previous generation 5 series. I could be wrong though.

  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,661
    Excellent video here with David Sullivan, the SOA New Car Line Manager, on the new 3.6L engine, and how it differs from the 3.0L engine. There's a lot of good info here.

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Very cool to see that.

    Dave gained a little weight, he must've been working hard and not getting out much! ;)

    Nice torque curve! It's making about 40 to 50 lb-ft more than before all the way up to 5000 rpm or so, basically where you use it.

    All gears except 4th are taller. I'm happy that 5th is taller, to get the revs down for my long trips. :shades:

    Less hunting for the trans.

    EPA numbers the same, so it would have been 18/23 using the old measures.

    No big surprises, but I loved seeing that torque curve tower over the old one. With less octane, no less.
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    I'll be curious to see what RPMs it turns at 65mph. Over the weekend I was towing the Baja with the Armada and had the cruise set on 65mph, was turning 1800rpms :)

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    He had a slide with the gear ratios but it was too blurry to see the actual numbers. We'll get the specifics soon enough, I guess.

    Heck, I'll email him and ask him for a copy of those slides.
  • morey000morey000 Posts: 320
    I just dropped the hammer on my 3.0L '07 this morning. I'm not sure if I've ever gone all the way to the floor before.

    By today's standards, a mid-8's 0-60 time is nothing to trumpet, but it sure was fast enough for me.

    Granted- as has been said, it's not the power that the 3.0L is lacking, it's the low end grunt and slow shifting. I'll try not to covet the new 3.6L engine. And- when gas prices are over $4/gal. The extra $0.20 for supreme will seem like less of a hit as when it was $2/gal.

    - my sour grapes- ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.