Subaru B9 Tribeca (B9X)

dcm61

I selected the 5-passenger moel.

 

That moel (sic) must be bigger than a NYC rat. ;-P

 

DaveM

sweet_subie

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1224660,0046.htm

rsholland

LOL Dave!

 

Bob

ateixeira

Mark: did I say 10" DVD? I'm pretty sure I said 9". The competition has 7", and size does matter! :-)

 

$30-32k sounds good to me, cloth and a moonroof is ideal IMO. You still get the 40/20/40 seat, so my kids can stay in their seats and I still get a pass-through or a place for the nanny, perfect!

 

-juice

subewannabe

My hope is that the price for the Tribeca and an AWD Sienna are comparable for comparable equipment, and that both will be so high, even with Subaru VIP invoice price, that my wife, who loves our Forester XT and will hate to give that up to drive the bigger vehicle, will ignore the kids clamoring for lots of space, DVD and wireless headphones and we can get a Legacy GT Ltd. wagon, instead! Vrooom!

Mark

ateixeira

I don't want this to turn into an anti-Highlander thread, in fact I'll share my review of the HL that I wrote back in 2002 when we shopped for one:

 

ateixeira, "Town Hall Test Drive Team" #31, 9 Jul 2003 2:55 pm

 

Here was my verdict back then:

 

I liked it; she didn't. Should be a good trip car, but not fun in the city, not really sporty but spacious and quiet.

  

But if I have to give up driving fun, I'd rather have a minivan

 

She being my wife, and this being her car, she ruled it out. But it's not a negative review.

 

However, brightness04 asked, so I'll answer, what does the Tribeca come with that the Highlander doesn't?

 

* 2nd row center pass-through

* split-folding 3rd row seat

* foot space under the 2nd row

* rear-biased AWD system

* more ground clearance (I think?)

* 18" rims (vs. 16" or 17")

* electroluminescent guages

* projector-type headlights

* turn signals in the side mirrors

* MP3 capability

* air filtration

* 9" DVD vs. 7"

* 3 years of roadside assistance

* potential for earning Subaru bucks (free service)

 

Please correct any mistakes I've made, my source is the Consumer Guide 2005 Buying Guide. If they omitted something let me know and I'll correct my list.

 

Better yet, ignore the list. The verdict for the Tribeca will come with the test drive. C&D and MT liked it, but the bottom line is I have to like it. The way it drives, I mean.

 

If not I'll just buy a minivan. Seriously.

 

-juice

brightness04

Check out the the lease pricing that were quoted a few posts back. $400/mo 36-mo/12k is quite amazing for vehicle in the mid-to-high 30's. Looks like GM finaicing is subsidizing the residue early on in the product cycle.

 

Sienna is a lot bigger. You definitely want to make sure you need that much space and your garage can fit ;-) If smaller vehicles in the mid-size SUV category (with about 60% of the cargo carrying capacity of full-size minivans) is adequate, either leasing a Tribeca or buying a Highlander (sugguesting it here only because you are already considering Sienna) is much less expensive than a comparably equipped Sienna. With two growing kids though, Sienna (or something else like it) might be a necessity soon.

subearu

Regarding the tires: I've read that some have opted for different brands of tires and going down to a lower speed rating than the OEM H's (but keeping the same load rating of 95). Others have gone to 225/55HR17 (if you have the 17" wheels on the ES) and found more selection (Yoko Avid's for instance).

 

back to the B9: looks like they're going to be offering some attractive lease deals, at least that was my take from the survey.

 

-Brian

ateixeira

Sienna would fit in our car port, though I'd have to swith sides with my wife because the fire place makes her side more narrow.

 

My favorite feature in the Sienna is the 8th seat, i.e. the middle 2nd row. I have two kids so that plus one would be for the nanny if I had the 3rd row folded. Or the wife could go sit with the kids on long trips, when needed. And watch a DVD.

 

I think that if we "wave the white flag" and give up on hopes for a sporty driving experience, I will shop Sienna, Ody, and probably MPV.

 

If the Tribeca handles like the X3 or X5, though, I'll be saving up my Subaru Bucks.

 

-juice

ateixeira

I bet a lot of people wonder why a family of 4 would even look at 7 or 8 seaters.

 

Well, we have a nanny, so make that 5, actually.

 

Then there is the car pooling. You end up trading rides with other parents at the school, so routinely we'll have a 3rd child in the car, some times a 4th.

 

The problem is, up until now, we've both tested vans but neither of us really likes the way they drive, they do feel too big and heavy for us. Heck, I prefer compact cars over mid-size!

 

Maybe I should hold out for Lotus to make a 7 seat version of the Elise. ;-)

 

-juice

rsholland

back to the B9: looks like they're going to be offering some attractive lease deals, at least that was my take from the survey.

 

I agree. With leasing you can usually get (into) more car for the money, and I bet SOA is hoping this might help people with the "sticker shock" that the Tribeca is likely to produce.

 

Won't work for me. I like to own my vehicles.

 

Bob

ateixeira

Me too, I always buy. And keep them long-term.

 

We hold on to cars 7 years or so. The Forester is already past that point, but it's been so good it might make it 10.

 

-juice

robr2

I got it as well and one series of questions was about the price of the options. One answer choice was that at those prices those options should be standard - that's the one I chose.

 

So if the Tribeca comes out at an even lower price than expected, you can all send me a percentage of the savings.

sduford

I owned a 2001 Highlander V6 AWD before trading it in for an OBXT.

 

I was extremely happy with the Highlander. It was superbly solid and well built with a smooth and torquy engine and lots of interior room. The only drawback is that it was BORING to drive. More than adequate handling (better then a Ford Taurus for example), but boring.

 

The AWD system was as good as my OBXT's (it actually felt more stable on my icy dirt road, but that could be partly tires, partly the extra power of the XT). It had better ABS brakes, and it consumed about the same amount of fuel. The seats were more comfortable and everything was designed right, including the ACC system and the interior lights.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I love my OBXT and do not regret the switch. I wanted something smaller and more fun to drive. The OBXT has far superior handling and power.

 

However, the Highlander was a very high quality car that provided me with solid value for my money. I don't care how long the equipment list is on the B9, Subaru will be hard-pressed to compete with the Highlander on quality and value fronts.

 

Sly

bluesubie

"In case you did not know, the overwhelming majority of Outbacks with automatic transmission send 90% of its engine torque to the front."

 

That's only during "normal" highway cruising on the 4EAT's. Hit the accelerator, brake or hit a turn and the torque split goes up to 50/50. Same for slippery surfaces.

 

-Dennis

njswamplands

brightness04

The sub-$32k Highlander Limited comes with electroluminescent guages, and projector-type headlights, foot space under the 2nd row (and the first); telescoping head rests on 2nd and third row that do not need removal for folding flat; front passenger seat that can be flattened to accommodate really long items (like the 8' ladder that I took home this weekend). Highlander Limited's AWD is open-differential equal distribution not front-biased like non VDC automatic Subarus, hence the difference between that and a slight rear-bias is quite minor. More importantly, the the sub-$32k price includes leather upholstery and CD-changer.

 

The rest of your list are insignificant items (or even of dubious value, such as 18" wheel for a vehicle designed for snow and potholes), with the possible exceptions of nearly 1" additional ground clearance and micro air filtration (one of the two items that still make me wonder if I did the right thing buying the Highlander over RX330).

 

Now moving beyond the creature comfort that minivan buyers care so much (just kdding ;-), Tribeca engine's 219lb-ft torque has to lug around 4245lbs, vs. Highlander's Limited's 242lb-ft moving 3935lbs. The difference in torque-to-weight ratio (or real life grin meter) is as great as 330i vs. 325i. (0.0615/0.0516 vs. 0.0651/0.0543), in favor of Highlander.

brightness04

8-seat Sienna and AWd are mutually excluseive. A real bummer!

rsholland

not front-biased like non VDC automatic Subarus

 

That's not the case on the Tribeca. It has VDC & VTD, so the front-to-rear power bias is 45/55.

 

One other thing: the all-or-nothing, non-split-fold 3rd row seat on the Highlander is the deal-breaker for me. No way can I get past that.

 

Bob

brightness04

That's only during "normal" highway cruising on the 4EAT's. Hit the accelerator, brake or hit a turn and the torque split goes up to 50/50. Same for slippery surfaces.

 

Under similar circumstances, Highlander's TRAC system would be sending torque to the wheel that can best use it, not merely 50/50 front and rear between the axels.

anotherwagon

Same here....to me, it would compete w/Pilot EX w/Leather - I don't want navigation or DVD. I've priced that at $30 - it would have to be in that price range. If it pushes up to $33-$35 plus leather for option then I'm pricing some other competitors.

 

Highlander not a consideration here due to size of the 3rd row.

brightness04

That's not the case on the Tribeca. It has VDC & VTD, so the front-to-rear power bias is 45/55.

 

So how much of a difference are you willing to pay between 45/55 and 50/50?

 

One other thing: the all-or-nothing, non-split-fold 3rd row seat on the Highlander is the deal-breaker for me. No way can I get past that.

 

Telescoping headrest that do not need removal when folded is actually more important for me; one of the reaons why I picked Highlander over Pilot. Hope Tribeca has two of those. While we are on the back side, does the rear door bottom on the Tribeca split and fold down or not? That could be a very good selling point for mid-size SUV's.

ateixeira

Rob: throwing virtual money at you right now. ;-)

 

Sly: sounds good. I think the Tribeca will take a more sporting approach, let's see. I think if it does, then it will appeal to a different buyer than the average Highlander owner.

 

I listed the equipment because someone asked that question directly. I agree that's not what matters - the drive it what matters.

 

telescoping head rests on 2nd and third row that do not need removal for folding flat

 

Tribeca has that also.

 

Again, I'm not claiming they are significant or not, I'm just answering your question.

 

I didn't get a good pic of the HL's 3rd row, anyone have one handy? I don't recall there being enough foot room under the 2nd row.

 

I'll say this now - HL will outsell the Tribeca 3 to 1, easily. 120k to about 40k annual sales. The segment itself will expand to accomodate those new Tribeca sales.

 

-juice

ateixeira

The only SUV I can think of that has a clam-shell rear gate like that is the Element.

 

Tribeca has a lift gate. That's good for rain cover, though.

 

-juice

brightness04

Yup, Pilot EX/L is a screaming bargain in this market segment. It was a real tough call for us 9 months ago. It eventually came down to the peculiarities of our body height, which falls exactly in the range where the non-adjustable front-seat head rests on the Pilot feel uncomfortable. Now that they have added sunroof to EXL and willing to go below MSRP, I don't know how I would have picked between the '05 models.

rsholland

Just pointing out the that the Tribeca is not FWD-biased AWD. Again, the Highlander's 3rd-row seating is the main deal-breaker for me. Don't care for the Highlander's styling either, but that's not a deal-breaker like the rear seat.

 

Bob

brightness04

Element and X5. The potential for accommodating the quitenssentially American 4'x 8' would be sweet, esepcially if that can be done without the extra foot of length and 3-400 lbs of a minivan. Speaking of rain cover, I found myself wishing for a power lift gate and power sliding doors controlled by key fob, while holding some heavy stuff with both hands in the snow and sleat. Can you say minivan? ;-)

brightness04

The extra 5" in length (Tribeca vs. Highlander) probably comes handy for 3rd row, althogh I have used the 3rd row exactly once in the 8-9 months that I have owned the Highlander. Not sure if it is worth the 300lbs extra weight that comes with the 5" though.

ateixeira

HL's trump card is the wide, wide array of choices, from a very basic 2WD 4 cylinder 4 seater to a leather-lined Limited 4WD V6 7 seater. That's why they sell so many.

 

Fitzmall.com has some of them for as little as $22k, of course that's the very basic 2WD 2.4l. But Toyota is a full-line manufacturer and can afford to offer so many choices.

 

Even a hybrid. Which is interesting because Subaru just announced they will partner with Toyota for theirs.

 

To be fair, let's list the things the HL offers that the Subaru doesn't:

 

* a cheaper 4 cylinder model

* cheaper 2WD models

* brake assist

* full-size spare

 

From that list the one I'd want is the full-size spare. Brake assist on Benzes is touchy and makes me car sick, so I'd pass on that.

 

I don't want to see a Subie with no AWD, that's sacreligious.

 

A 2.5l model? Prolly not, unless it got a significant boost. I'm not sure Toyota sells many 4 cylinders either.

 

-juice

brightness04

haha, we don't even have kids. We do carry a lot of cargo due to our profession, and we have a 90lb dog. Lotus 7-seater? Would that be a tandem bike or something?

ateixeira

That was an inside joke. I like light, back-to-basics vehicles but that conflicts with my needs for a family car.

 

So yes, I want a Subaru Paradox, with:

 

* sub 2000 lb curb weight

* 300hp hybrid power with 30+mpg

* 7 seats

* AWD with stability control

* every feature known to man

* for $20,000

 

Please. )

 

Fact is I might have to buy 3 vehicles to do all that. An Elise, a minivan, and a Subaru.

 

The Subaru Paradox. Oh, and it has to be a convertible!

 

-juice

rsholland

The extra 5" in length (Tribeca vs. Highlander) probably comes handy for 3rd row, althogh I have used the 3rd row exactly once in the 8-9 months that I have owned the Highlander. Not sure if it is worth the 300lbs extra weight that comes with the 5" though

 

I wasn't referring to the extra 5" that the Tribeca has, but that's also a plus, now that you mention it. I was referring to the Highlander's lack of a split-fold 3rd-row rear seat.

 

Bob

brightness04

In addition to the list you have, also consider:

1. lower price when comparably equipped, by as much as $3-5k.

2. better reliability reputation (and record too in the case of Highlander).

3. significantly higher torque-to-weight ratio (real world accelearation)

brightness04

Point well taken. Relative roominess of and the option to split the third row. I was merely pointing out what made that possible: the 5" extra in length. There is a 300lb weight penalty however, especially considering the relative torque deficit to begin with for what amount to 4000lb trucks in this category.

brightness04

I would have one more requirement, dynamic weight management: curb weight 2000lbs in normal driving, but suddenly jumps up to 5000lbs the moment before collision with another vehicle ;-) No momentum conservation during weight increase please ;-)

c_hunter

In case you did not know, the overwhelming majority of Outbacks with automatic transmission send 90% of its engine torque to the front. That's a much much higher per centage than AWD Highlanders that use open differential plus TRAC.

 

I am not talking about torque splits (regardless of the fact that the Tribeca is 45F/55R like the OB XT, LLB, and VDC). I am talking about the Highlander being a FWD-based car platform with transverse engine. Any 4WD or AWD vehicle that is based on a FWD platform with a transverse engine is a kludge. If they really wanted to make a true AWD vehicle, and take advantage of the packaging, handling, and stability benefits of AWD, they would have a north-south engine layout and a symmetrical AWD system. Subaru, and to a certain extent, Audi, are the only ones that do this.

 

In other cases -- Honda, Ford, Volvo, Toyota, VW, etc... -- manufacturers take a FWD platform with a transverse engine and add a shaft going to drive the rear axle. Some of these systems are advanced and do enhance traction and foul weather capability, but it comes at the expense of weight, packaging, and handling.

 

Most shoppers don't really know or care about this. But for those who do, it become very apparent that if you want excellent handling and stability, coupled with full time AWD that enhances every day driving (even on dry roads) systems like those in Subaru are vastly superior.

 

So, in summary -- Highlander is based on a FWD transverse engine platform with high mounted drivetrain that has a heavy front bias in weight. The Tribeca is based on a symmetrical AWD platform with a low mounted drivetrain (centrally mounted is a better description). That is why the Tribeca will drive similar to an Outback or Legacy. Subaru emphasized that in their introduction at Detroit several times, and the car mag reviews that are trickling out are mentioning the same thing.

 

In the end, everyone has their own opinion. In my case, I can say that the handling characteristics of the Highlander turned me off when we drove one in 2002. And when we drove Subarus, the handling was excellent and turned out to be a strong trait. I expect the same from the Tribeca -- it has a very strong foundation to start with, and the fact that it is larger than an Outback is not going to impact handling that much. Given the larger tires and the over all larger footprint of the wider track and longer wheelbase, I would wager that the Tribeca might handle as well as, if not better, than my Outback XT. It has all the right ingredients, and overall size is not a major detractor.

 

Craig

c_hunter

One advantage about frameless windows -- they take structure and weight normally allocated to the door frames and built it into the body structure of the car. This gives the overall vehicle a higher strength to weight ratio and puts "material" in the main structure where it can contribute to energy absorption and overall structural integrity. Material allocated to door frames contributes little or nothing to the overall vehicle's structure. So that is why Subaru, and a few other manufacurers, have stuck with frameless windows all these years. The potential downsides are sealing and wind noise which are fairly well handled in recent models.

 

On the Tribeca, they could not use a frameless design in the rear doors because the glass size was so large. Thus, it drove the design to use framed doors all the way around. I was really intrigued when I learned that -- just goes to show that they have to consider a whole lot of factors when coming up with a design. It's always an overall compromise, and sometimes, individual strengths and weaknesses get glossed over.

 

Craig

brightness04

What difference does longitudinal mount (the more formal term for "north-south") make vis transverse? Hardly anything. Please do not tell me MR2 of the 1980's were somehow less sporting than Subaru wagons; they had transverse engine mounts. Subaru's alleged lower center of gravity comes from flat boxer engines. Transverse or longgitudinal makes no difference whatsoever; Subaru made FWD cars with flat boxer engines too, and may still do outside North America.

 

The Tribeca is based on a symmetrical AWD platform with a low mounted drivetrain (centrally mounted is a better description).

 

Again, "centrally mounted" has nothing to do with "low mounted." "Centrally mounted" refers to the engine location with its center of gravity behind front axel. "Low mount" refers to the boxer engine having lower center of gravity. Two entirely different issues. Also "symmetrical AWD" and 45/55 are mutually exclusive. Highlander Limited on the other hand is indeed 50/50 or "symmetrical AWD"

 

the fact that it is larger than an Outback is not going to impact handling that much. Given the larger tires and the over all larger footprint of the wider track and longer wheelbase, I would wager that the Tribeca might handle as well as, if not better, than my Outback XT

 

600 lbs makes all the difference in the world. How much do you want to wager? I'm not into taking candy from kids, but if you want to give your money away anyway, I will take some.

c_hunter

Symmetrical AWD refers to the overall layout, with engine and drivetrain symmetrical about the vehicle centerline. It's a packaging concept, not about torque split.

 

Transverse engine mount only makes sense when you are driving the axle that is co-located with and parallel to the engine crankshaft (hence MR2). If you are driving both axles, then it is non-optimum, and there's no real benefit to having a transverse engine from a drivetrain standpoint. But manufacturers do this all the time when they convert a FWD platform to AWD. To the masses, it's AWD but to engineers and people who understand, it's a kludge. If they were creating an AWD platfrom on purpose, it would not have a transverse engine.

 

Like I said before, there is an optimum configuration for AWD that has packaging, handling, and stability benefits, and Subaru is using it.

 

600 lbs weight will impact acceleration, but weight distribution -- not raw weight -- is what affects handling and stability. Without knowing anything, we can take the added footprint of the Tribeca and easily see that the 500-600 lbs added weight (even less in 5-pax versions) is mitigated by the larger track, wheelbase, and tire contact patch. I don't even need to drive the car to say that. If the suspension were similar to what's in my Outback, than the Tribeca will handle as well or better than the Outback just because the footprint is growing more than the added weight.

 

Craig

sduford

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate Craig, you are overstating it. I think you've been drinking the Subaru cool-aid for too long.

 

Transversal mounting allows for a shorter nose, longer wheel-base, and more interior room. Those are worthy attributes if you are buying a car, and not just an AWD system. For example, the 05 Outback is 2.4" longer then the Volvo XC70 and 4" longer then the Highlander, but it has a lot less leg room and cargo room then both of them.

 

Also, the OBXT is only about 450 lbs lighter then the Highlander and 220 lbs lighter then the Volvo. Given that the OB makes use of aluminum body parts and both of the other cars are wider and taller, and the Highlander has a much larger V6 and a 3rd row of seats, I really don't see much, if any, drivetrain weight penalty.

 

Sly

sweet_subie

only 450lbs lighter ?

sduford

Yep, according to Edmunds:

 

OBXT 5EAT is 3480 Lbs

Highlander V6 AWD Premium w. 3rd row is 3935 lbs.

 

My 2001 non-premium 5 seat Highlander was actually 3780 lbs.

 

Sly

c_hunter

Transversal mounting allows for a shorter nose, longer wheel-base, and more interior room. Those are worthy attributes if you are buying a car, and not just an AWD system.

 

I would have agreed with you 5-6 years ago, but not any more. Chrysler 300 is one example where a relatively compact size vehicle (with a longitudinally mounted V8 no less) has a huge interior and trunk volume. You no longer need a transverse engine to minimize the underhood area. Besides, the main benefit of space savings with transverse mounting comes from using inline or narrow vee engines (like VW has). As soon as you shoehorn a traditional V engine into a transverse mount, you're losing most of the benefit.

 

Craig

sduford

OK, so why does Subaru have such abysmal wheel-base and interior space for such a long car? They are one of the worst in the industry for that. So perhaps they don't need a transversly mounted engine to do better, but why aren't they doing better? Isn't a limitation of the Symetrical AWD?

 

In any case, the weight argument still doesn't fly. To add to the comparison with the Highlander, it also has a bigger gas tank, a higher towing capacity, and a full size spare! All things that add weight.

 

Sly

c_hunter

Well I never said Subaru had good interior space, in fact, it is clearly one of their downsides. Whether that relates to the drivetrain I don't know, but having a transmission/drivetrain tunnel certainly wouldn't help. But any 4WD/AWD vehicle requires a tunnel to some extent so that can't be a key contributor.

 

One reason for the smaller size vehicle is that Subaru shares platforms globally -- so the North American cars tend to be small by our standards. Honda and Toyota, on the other hand, have developed larger North American versions of their key platforms (retaining the smaller ones for Japan and Europe). Our TSX is technically a Japanese/Euro Accord, and it is noticeably smaller than the US Accord. In fact, the TSX is about the same or slightly smaller than my Outback for interior space.

 

The Tribeca is very roomy inside, and coincidentally, it is a platform targeted for the North American market. So clearly Subaru can make a roomier/bigger vehicle and retain the symmetrical AWD system.

 

Craig

samiam_68

I think Jeeps have symmetrical layouts, but they drive and handle like crap. Highlander, and even Ford Escape have transverse engine layouts AFAIK, and they both drive and handle like cars. Go figure...

sduford

Ageed, but that only explains the reduced width of Subarus. It's great to see the B9 doesn't suffer from that. I'd love to see the Outback gain 2 or 3 inches of width.

 

But that doesn't explain the lack of legroom in the Outback despite the very long body. I cannot think of anything other then drivetrain layout to explain it. Unless Subaru engineers are stupid and they purposely design their cars to have less interior room.

 

Don't get me wrong I like the Symetrical AWD concept, especially for the lowered CofG. But I think many Subaritsi overstate the significance of this drivetrain. I guess Subaru's marketing is working well on that front.

 

Sly

samiam_68

My '96 Legacy wagon had 74 cu. ft. of interior cargo space. Total length was 183 inches, width 66. That car was very roomy.

 

The '05 Legacy wagon has 66 cu. ft. of interior cargo space. It's 189 inches long, 68 wide. Interior is quite cramped.

 

So, the '06 $39K 4200lb 24MPG Tribeca will have approximately the same interior cargo space as my '96 $19K 3100lb 29MPG Legacy.

 

I don't think Subaru is headed in the right direction here.

samiam_68

.. that Subaru will be introducing a new mini-cute-ute styled like the VW Beetle? It'll be called the Bajambug....

subewannabe

The concepts of leasing and Subaru seem to be almost mutually exclusive. I know a lot of folks who drive Subarus and very few of those cars are less than 3 years old, some much older..the granola crowd takes pride in getting a lot of utility for their $$. The early market research about leasing a Tribeca seems to signal a significant change in the target market. Toyota,with a stable of vehicles known for reliability and longevity of ownership, did the same thing with the Solara convertible...a much higher percentage of those are leased than other Toyota models.