I understand your point and it is well taken. I look at it differently, though.
Yes, Baja failed. That we can all agree on. Nice try, just didn't work.
I think Tribeca has not been a failure, however. I think (and I could be wrong) that after one or two iterations, Tribeca will be a very strong car and a reasonable option. So I would say they did a nice job with Tribeca and it should be considered a success. I also think Subaru was key in creating a new market with its WRX and STI. You can argue that was/is a new market and they've been successful there.
In my book, that is two for three, not bad.
More impoortantly, and I think this is why Subaru is so strong--they've been steadily improving and growing their core products--Legacy, Outback and Forester--while expanding into street territory (WRX/STI) and the three seater (Tribeca).
From a business perspective, that's hard to do and, in my mind, they are doing it nicely. It's not like Ford or GM where they swing for the fences with a new savior car every other year. You can afford to expand, grow and yes fail, if your core business franchise is strong, which it appears to be.
One final note. I am suspect on the speculations about Subaru's business. I hear the Indiana plant is in the red. Fuji Heavy Industries is in trouble, etc. I just don't see credible financial information supporting those assertions. Wonder if we should have a forum about Subaru financial performance? That way we could move from assertions to more sound financial analysis?
Here's a real test. When it comes to the quality of the cars, the reputation of the cars and the brand loyalty of its buyers, how many car companies wish they were Subaru?
we drive Subarus specifically because they offer good quality and yet are understated and we like to keep it simple and unpretentious
Agreed, but this is one of the obstacles for the Tribeca. It falls outside the usual mold for them.
look at the improvement they've made in the quality of their interiors and the fabrics alone
Agreed, and if anyone disagrees please take one peek at a Forester's head liner. Now go to the VW Phaeton, a $70k luxury car, and you'll find the identical material used there.
9-2x: FHI liked it for the economies of scale. Gunma factory liked it for more production. SoA hated it, they had to share a hot product. Subaru Dealers hated it, they now had to compete with Saab, and even worse, GM Employee Pricing.
Overall, the 9-2x did more harm than good. It left a bad taste on the whole GM deal, and SoA was cheering loudly when they found out about the Toyota deal. In fact that was unanimous, I have yet to hear a single opinion from any source against that deal.
Note: I was not against the 9-2x, I understood the need for economies of scale and just didn't want to see a Subaru badge on a product without AWD and a boxer engine, so the 9-2x didn't offend me.
The important critera is that the Tribeca has not lived up to Subaru's sales goal. That's the single important indicator. No they won't say it's a failure but IMHO, if you don't meet your own goal - it is.
One final note. I am suspect on the speculations about Subaru's business. I hear the Indiana plant is in the red. Fuji Heavy Industries is in trouble, etc. I just don't see credible financial information supporting those assertions.
Financially, Fuji is not in a stellar conditon. They won't be going out of business today but they have to do something to prop up stock price and profitability.
Agreed, and if anyone disagrees please take one peek at a Forester's head liner. Now go to the VW Phaeton, a $70k luxury car, and you'll find the identical material used there.
How about the rest of the interior? My wife nixed the Legacy because she deemed it "cheap" inside. It may be functional and last a long time, but she didn't feel the value.
9-2X was a typical example of a GMs inability to read the market probably mixed with some total arrogance from execs.
There was nothing wrong with "upscale WRX" concept. The problem was it was not upscale at all. The only thing separating WRX and 9-2X was exterior styling, 2 year maintenance (3 oil changes), 4 year warranty and a few month headstart in interior. Pricing for 9-2X Linear was lunacy running amok - about 6 grand premium on sticker! Aero was slightly better. If they made real Swedish interior (unique to the car) with good upscale touches, the car would actually have had potential for people like me.
Also clueless dealers and probably marketing execs pushed automatic transmission on both Linear and Aero trims. How stupid one must be to believe a lame 4 speed no-manual shift (good for economy compact) would sell on 20-30K "premium compact" car, as it was being presented. One look on Subaru's 02-03 sales would tell them that manuals was the way to go, especially on Aero.
I'm glad it's over so we won't have more idiotic projects like those. My only concern in Toyota deal is that Subaru will move too much "mainstream" and their Legacies will look and drive like Camrys in 5-8 years from now. If not that, the packaging, which is already frustrating, will turn into a Auto-[non-permissible content removed] "you can't have sunroof without Navigation and xenon lights" nightmare. I hope I'm wrong, though.
I agree with everything you write. Personally, I was hoping that the Subaru-Saab "arrangement" would have worked. I really like the design and aesthetics of the Saabs. The trouble I have is that they can be fickle cars and a tad unreliable. Of course, the Subaru is anything but fickle. However, the design and aesthetics are just not great. Could have been the perfect marriage. We looked closely at the 92-X. It looked good and we were leaning toward it. Unfortunately, when we started to hear GM talk about breaking from Subaru--hence killing the partnership--that made us nervous and we stayed with Subaru.
Sad really because it could have been an interesting and innovative partnership.
Has it been a runaway success, no? Has it been a total disaster, most likely not. In my post, I made the comment that in a few iterations, the car could be a winner. It might not be there yet, but I don't think that the car is a failure. In my mind, the jury is still out on the Tribeca.
Two comments on sales. First, we don't know what Subaru's actual sales goals are for the Tribeca. Certainly, they may make public statements saying how many cars they want to sell, but that is generally not indicative of what they actually want to sell. My guess is that they are generally pleased in private. Although, it would be nice to have a marketing person from Subaru join the forum and comment on the sales of the Tribeca. Second, it is still too early to make a judgement. I think Subaru is behind the Tribeca for the long haul, they need a vehicle with three rows. My sense is they will pleased as long as they have steady growth. The Japanese car companies are like that. They don't get too caught up in quarter to quarter sales. They like to take a longer view.
As for the finances, thank you for posting the link. I would like to see the article but I don't get the WSJ online. I would like to look more closely at Fuji. I've heard mixed data. Again, a forum for investigating the finances of Fuji is warranted.
I come back to my first question. How many automakers would trade places with Subaru--despite any of its potential challenges? My guess is quite a few.
I'm sure they're happy that the Tribeca hasn't turned out to be a Baja or an Outback Sedan (just for juice). But when you announce to the world "we plan to sell X" and the reality is X-Y%%, that's not a good thing.
IIRC, their goal was 3K per month in the first year. An article I googled showed they'll hit about 26K in the first year - that's about 2,200 per month. Target missed by over 26%.
I come back to my first question. How many automakers would trade places with Subaru--despite any of its potential challenges? My guess is quite a few.
For profitability - maybe GM and Ford.
For market share - SAAB, VW, Isuzu.
For customer loyalty - you might be suprised - maybe not as many as you think:
As a businessman, I think a miss on a target of 26% is not that bad for a first year product (call me an optimist). Obviously, not cause for a celebration, but clearly something to build on. I think they have a decent car and they need to do some tweaking to the business model. Two dealers that I talked to last weekend said they were not moving the Tribecas on their lots, but that interest was definitely picking up. Both were cautious but upbeat and optimistic. As I have stated, the jury is still out and we'll see how the car is doing in two to three years.
I am not a big believer in JD Power. I have problems with their methodology. I think Consumer Reports is statistically more significant and has a bigger--and more credible--market reach. I've also seen other reports that document Subaru buyers are some of the most loyal car buyers there are.
If you look at Consumer Reports, every product Subaru makes is marked "recommended." If I were asked to be the CEO of any auto company, I would choose Subaru over any of the other car companies you list. GM and Ford have terrible product lines and are in terrible financial shape. I love Saab but they have no SUV and no all wheel drive--the two must haves for a car line. VW is in rough shape, but, I agree, interesting. Isuzu--they still make cars?
By the way, this is not to say that Subaru is not without its problems. It is just that I would take their problems over the problems of many of the other car companies any day.
As a businessman, I think a miss on a target of 26% is not that bad for a first year product (call me an optimist).
You're an optimist!!
In my business, miss by 26% and you may not get the opportunity to try again. Product planners and marketers are supposed to know the business. IMHO, 26% off target is miserable - especially when the investment is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
I am not a big believer in JD Power. I have problems with their methodology. I think Consumer Reports is statistically more significant and has a bigger--and more credible--market reach.
I posted the JD Power link since it was in my e-mail this morning. In fact, I think Subaru did very well in customer retention. But I bet most folks figuered they would be in the top 3.
As for CR, I don't use them for comparisons. They test everything like it's an appliance. But they are unbiased.
As for the car lines I listed, that was in response to your query as to what companies would change places with Subaru - not that they were better than Subaru.
And yes, Saab dooes offer an SUV - the 9-7X. Not that it's a real Saab but it is an SUV.
Overall, I like the Subaru brand. But like Hondaphiles and BMWnistas, the Subaholics sometimes feel the criticism is unwarranted and take it as a personal attack. No vehicle is perfect nor is any manufacturer. I should know - I just bought a VW but I did it knowingly.
Yep. I am an optimist! Plus, I believe that you have to take the longer view. I am against the quarter to quarter sales mentality running a company. I think that has been a huge driver of Toyota's success. Again, a miss of 26% percent is not fun, but I think you have to look at other factors and I think they point to the long-term viability of the Tribeca, with a few adjustments.
I agree with you on Consumer Reports--but they are hugely influential. I just can't help but feel most auto companies would be jealous of Subaru. Great cars. High brand loyalty. Famous reliability. Overall, a true winner.
However, don't get me wrong. Subaru drives me absolutely nuts. You won't find me suggesting that Subaru is not worthy of attack. I wouldn't dream of taking it personally. Perhaps we should take this forum in a new direction--what Subaru should do to improve? Here's my list for starters. First, terrible dealerships. How about a cup of coffee and a nice place to sit? Second, no satelite or navigation options. Third, terrible accessory options (most should either be on the car or offer better options). Fourth, terrible (but slightly improving) design. Fifth, bad advertising (the Tribeca ads are some of the worst car ads ever done). Sixth, a terribly low quality car manual and ownership package. Seventh, gosh darn awful car colors. Eighth, no electronic read out on tire air pressure.
Care to add any more?
Overall, and I have always maintained, Subaru does the big things better than most--price, quality, reliability, all wheel drive and value. Yet, they can't do the small things at all.
I would like to grab a few of the senior executives at Subaru and take them to a Saab, Land Rover, Audi or even a Nissan dealer and walk them through the experience. Then do the same for most (not all) Subaru dealers. I think they would be horrified.
How's that for a dedicated Subaholic?
Yet, all that said, I'd still rather be in Subaru's shoes than Saab's shoes (even though I used to own Saabs and loved those cars).
I don't agree about the Legacy feeling cheap inside, in fact most plastics are padded and soft to the touch.
The exception is the seemingly mandatory fake-aluminum plastic (pluminum?), which would look better in matte black or even plood. It looks too "sport compact" and not at all upscale.
Legacy is selling well, the model's sales are way up, and I keep looking at prices and note that starting prices are a good $4-5 grand higher than they were when we bought our 2002 Legacy.
Tribeca hasn't turned out to be a Baja or an Outback Sedan
Thanks, duly noted.
Remember, Tribeca sales keep growing, and have not peaked yet. It's too early to call.
Have no Subaru experience, too turned off by the styling. But, when the new Legacy was coming out, devoured the info. Loved the look and wanted to test drive. But, the 6 did not come here. Didn't/don't want a turbo. Why didn't that make it here?
Is anyone else's tv watching bening saturated with a new Subaru commercial? I must have seen it 5 times in 3 hours last night.
It shows some footage of the Forester and Outback driving over gravel and spinning out on dirt, with a narrater plugging the AWD, 5-star safety rating, mpg averages (obviously non-turbo figures), etc, as well as the current $1000 rebate.
Relatively simple, but still one of the more intelligent Subaru commercials in recent memory - definitely moreso than the Dust In The Wind ads. Market your strong suits, it's not that difficult.
Subaru went with the H6 on the Outback, probably because the SUV alternatives came with 6 cylinder engines and they wanted to match them. Plus it's their best seller, so naturally it's the favorite to get anything new.
The GT got the turbo, and surprisingly that turned out to be a good decision, sales are strong and in fact the proportion of Legacy sales (vs. Outback) increased, particularly for the GT, particularly for sedans.
The Spec B model Legacy in Japan actually gets an H6+6 speed manual, a sweet powertrain, but Subaru sells it here with the turbo-4 and a 5 speed probably because they didn't have to re-certify it for EPA.
The Spec B should get a 6 speed next year, but we hear it will still keep the turbo engine.
Somebody better tell the Executioner not to lop off 50% of production then.
Is it too soon to say that the Tribeca is a failure? Yes. But it's not too soon to report that it's first 7 or 8 months have been a failure. The initial sales estimates included the fact that it was a first year vehicle. Subaru has taken action based on current progress. So, I don't think it's too soon for us to read the writing on the wall.
Now I completely agree that pronouncing the whole model a dead-end is premature. Things could pick up. But they could just as easily get worse. If Subaru makes changes to the vehicle, it could very well recover. But those changes will cost money, which cuts deeper into the profitability of the vehicle. And if those changes don't work... they've thrown good money after bad.
Anyway, keep the faith, Jpfkk. Just keep in mind nobody owns a reliable crystal ball and we can only make judgement based on what we've seen so far.
Even if Tribeca's US sales plateaued (did I spell that right?!) at 2000/month, I think that's enough to justify continuing production. Remember that B9 will start going on sale in Europe, Australia and Chile soon... with all production coming from the SIA plant.
As far as a facelift, I think Subaru will react quickly to get it on the '07 (or '07.5?) rather than waiting 'til '08. Maybe the Europeans will like the current face better, though. Could they produce a different face for two markets?
Legacy competition coming soon from China? Turns out Malcom Bricklin's Visionary Vehicles is changing their strategy away from low-end cars, looking to launch their first model as a competitor to the A4 (and thus the Legacy) in one year. Under $20k will get you AWD, leather, wood and a 10-year/100k-mile warranty.
Is it too soon to say that the Tribeca is a failure? Yes. But it's not too soon to report that it's first 7 or 8 months have been a failure.
The same could be said of the Honda Ridgeline—and you know I don't consider that a failure. Disappointing, yes. Failure, no.
Subaru, like Honda, will get the receipe correct. I look forward to seeing v.1.1 (v.1.2?) of both models, as I expect many of the criticisms addressed.
is that Subaru is a small company, and because of that, has great difficulty in introducing new models that are 100% "new." It's not a problem for larger companies like Honda or Toyota, but for Subaru—this is an issue that has haunted them for years, and continues to haunt them.
Look at the Tribeca. The styling is all new, but a lot of the running gear is pretty much carried over from the Outback, or is "tweaked" from that being used on the Outback. Historically what Subaru does (at least with recent history) is to offer a new model (styling, etc.), and then over the course of the product's life cycle, make the mechanical and package content upgrades that we all wish had occurred when the vehicle was first introduced.
When Honda and others, introduce a new model, that model remains as is (unless there is a problem of some sort) for pretty much the entire life-cycle of that model. There may be a subtle mid-life styling refresh, like what just happened with the Accord, but that's pretty much it. Subaru on the other hand makes subtle additions and/or tweaks to package content every year. They're constantly refining the package. So I expect in the next year or so to see more power, and many of the other things we all would like to see.
One good thing about Subaru is that they listen to customers. About a year before the current Forester was introduced, Patti (the rep from SOA, who used to be a member of the Subaru Crew), asked the Crew what we would like to see in the (then) new Forester. When the vehicle debut, eight items we asked for made it into production. That I know for a fact, as Patti said so. The fact the Subaru is quickly moving to make the front styling more agreeable to more customers is just one more example of this.
I'm not suggesting that Subaru scrap the Tribeca. That would result in a loss of even more money. I'm certain that Subaru is making a small profit with the Tribeca and it is expanding their range of buyers. But it isn't doing it nearly as well as they anticipated. Big investment... tiny payoff.
All I'm saying is, when it comes to expanding their line-up beyond their core wagons, things haven't been so rosy.
BTW, yes, Subaru could create a different variation for the european, african, and south american markets. So long as the basic parts (headlights, grill, etc.) stay in the same place, they can make quite a few changes.
The same is being written of the Ridgeline. Coincidentally for many of the same reasons (not enough power, wacky styling, and high price). Sales of the Ridgeline are down by 4% and many people consider it a flop.
I'm told Tribeca sales are down 26%.
For the sake of discussion, how far off do sales have to be before you'd consider a vehicle worthy of flop status?
BTW, yes, Subaru does a very good job of making continuous improvements to their line of cars. Recently, Nissan has also been very good at this. It's expensive, but it's also a good way to keep models competitive.
Now, I don't track Subaru's sales figures as well as you have, so let me ask you this... Have those improvements resulted in higher sales figures, or have they maintained the sales pace?
I bleieve the 26% is dwon from what was reported as Subarus target sale figure, so they aren't down as much as below forecast, if theat forecast was even legitimate.
I was a Tribec being followed by an MDX yesterday (from the side), both black. They really weren't that much different, other than the Beca was much "busier" with the details, creases, etc.
Just redoing the front and rear ends (the "easy" parts to restyle) could go a long way toward making the Tribeca a handsome stylish vehicle, as opposed to a overdone (IMO) stylish vehicle, which would probably help sales noticeably.
They also seem to have the same problem as Ford, in that the 3.0V6, while certainly adequate, is somewhat underwhelming, and lags the compitition, at least on paper. Any change of seeing a bigger displacement version of the flat 6? Maybe 3.3 or 3.5? 30 more HP and 30/40 maore torque would be nice.
Or, throw a Turbo on that baby!
Then, put some more focus on the 5 seat model, and make sure that the lower end of the market is supported (that is, don't try to sell all 40K loaded models) and it should do just fine.
The same is being written of the Ridgeline. Coincidentally for many of the same reasons (not enough power, wacky styling, and high price). Sales of the Ridgeline are down by 4% and many people consider it a flop.
Do "you" consider it a flop? I don't.
I'm told Tribeca sales are down 26%.
The sales are climbing every month. They can only be "down" if you're comparing it to previous months or years, which is not the case. Are they meeting monthly projections? No, hence the upcoming facelift, and probably other other upgrades too. I don't know the percentage that they are off. Don't forget, the unexpected $3.00+ gas didn't help either.
For the sake of discussion, how far off do sales have to be before you'd consider a vehicle worthy of flop status?
Not sure. Maybe someone with a "business administration" background (not me) could help define what is generally accepted in the industry as a "flop." I'd say the Baja is a "sales" flop, but not a flop as a "product." You ask just about any Baja owner if they're happy with their purchase, and I'd say most are. It's more of a case of bad product planning than anything else.
BTW, yes, Subaru does a very good job of making continuous improvements to their line of cars. Recently, Nissan has also been very good at this. It's expensive, but it's also a good way to keep models competitive.
True. It also keeps Subaru in the news every year, which results in continuous "brand awareness," which is good.
Now, I don't track Subaru's sales figures as well as you have, so let me ask you this... Have those improvements resulted in higher sales figures, or have they maintained the sales pace?
The sales are climbing every month. They can only be "down" if you're comparing it to previous months or years, which is not the case. Are they meeting monthly projections? No, hence the upcoming facelift, and probably other other upgrades too.
Marketing types may claim otherwise, but sales forecasting is much more of an art than a science. What looks like disappointing sales figures for the 'beca might be the result of over-optimistic forecasting rather than poor sales per se.
I'd say the Baja is a "sales" flop, but not a flop as a "product." You ask just about any Baja owner if they're happy with their purchase, and I'd say most are. It's more of a case of bad product planning than anything else.
I just bought an 06 3.0R Wagon. When I was doing my inventory search on various dealer sites I was amazed to find some new 2003 Baja's for sale here in Minneapolis. If they really were new, I would most definitely call that a "sales" flop.
I still own and drive my first Subaru, a 97 Legacy GT Wagon, which, in my 50 plus years, is THE best car I've ever had for driving in slop, snow, slush, rain...with four good tires (not the OEM's, which weren't so hot), this car hugs the road. I've never felt safer driving a car, and I drive at a pretty good speed all the time.
I also hate SUV's...all of them, Tribeca included. IMO, they're ugly as hell, and they're dangerous at speed. Make a sudden avoidance move at 70 mph on the interstate and you'd better have your seat belt on tight..you may be tipping! It's incredible to me that people think these things are "safe." The higher up you sit, the higher your center of gravity, and Physics was a course I managed to pass in high school.
Give me my GT's low center of gravity any day. And it's got all the "utility" I need.
I am very tempted by the new GT Wagons. Test drove an 05 and was amazed by the speed! Like the looks too.
It often takes more than you would think to roll a vehicle over. Most rollovers happen after the vehicle leaves the road (after the driver has lost control), and when the tires "trip" on an obstruction on the ground, the car rolls over. Tripping is more likely to occur when there is a high center of gravity.
The VDC that is included standard on the Tribeca, and Outback 3.0 VDC edition goes a long, long way towards preventing the initial loss of control which leads to the rollover by helping keep the car pointed where the driver is pointing it. I wish Subaru would offer it on their other models. I think the vast majority of SUV's sold in the US will have it by 2007.
It often takes more than you would think to roll a vehicle over. Most rollovers happen after the vehicle leaves the road (after the driver has lost control), and when the tires "trip" on an obstruction on the ground, the car rolls over. Tripping is more likely to occur when there is a high center of gravity.
IIRC, the critical safety failure of the Corvair (as Ralph Nader so well documented) was that the car could roll over in sharp but non-emergency cornering even without the tires' hitting any obstructions.
The original Corvair, like the early VWs, had a swing arm rear suspension. This type of suspension under certain adverse cornering situations could "tuck under," resulting in a rollover.
I know this for a fact—and first-hand—as I rolled a '62 VW many years ago, just after I got my driver's license.
Believe it or not, Tribeca outhandled the Outback in a slalom test (I think it was Car and Driver). For an SUV, its center of gravity is very low, and its very wide tires (and wider stance than Outback) add to its stability. In general I agree with you, though.
I consider the Tribeca to be a sales flop, a flop as an image booster, and a flop in terms of generating expected profits. "Profits", of course, being more or less the same category as sales, but, since we're getting into semantics territory, I figured I should be specific.
I do not consider the Tribeca to be a design flop. (styling flop = yes design flop = no) For the past 15 years or so, Subaru has been successfully selling the Outback as their alternative to the mid-size SUV. In recent years, the segment has grown bigger than the Outback can reasonably get. So building something larger makes perfect sense.
The Tribeca, as an entry into the larger part of the segment, is an overall good design. It's a bit weak in the engine, but everything else from content to quality is in order.
I agree with some (not all) of your assessments. I would use the word "disappointment," not "flop," however. To me the word "flop" means complete and utter failure. I don't regard the Tribeca in that way.
Do "you" consider [the Ridgeline] a flop? I don't.
At 4% under forecasts, no. At 15-20% or more under forecasts, yes.
However, as outlined in the above post, there's more than one way to be a flop. The Element, for example, sold well over expectations, but did not significantly improve the brand's image with the youth. Which was the Element's secondary mission. So it was a sales success and a mission flop.
With that in mind, I consider the Ridgeline more or less sales neutral, but a mission flop since it has not boosted the brand's image with truck buyers.
Don't forget, the unexpected $3.00+ gas didn't help either.
Pilot, Highlander, and several other crossovers had increases in sales during the same period. Given the good EPA estimates for the Tribeca I would have thought gas prices were an advantage for it.
Well, I will admit, the news gets worse for the Subaru Tribeca. This weekend the very influential New York Times automotive section just crushed the Tribeca as a terribly designed, underpowered, ill-conceived, late to market SUV. Given the reach of the Times in the Northeast, that hurts.
The good thing is that, unlike American car companies, who would respond to such a slow start with automatic price slashing, Subaru does have a tendency to take in the criticisms and evolve the product. If you read the article, nothing in it can't be fixed. As I have said in this forum repeatedly, let's see where Tribeca is in year three. That will be crucial.
By the way, according to Subaru's Web site, the company sold 14,521 cars in November. Given that Tribeca is new, the numbers are not bad:
An half-glass empty person would suggest that Tribeca is the worst selling Subaru model (setting aside Baja, of course).
A half-glass full person would suggest that:
1) The company makes a lot more on a Tribeca than its other model lines (at least it is not unreasonable to assume that).
2) For a new car, in a new market for the company, to be selling roughly 38% of the number of vehicles that the long-standing and best selling Legacy model is at least enough for me to say the jury is still out and a more positive future for the Tribeca can be achieved with improvement.
In sum, yes, Tribeca missed its sales numbers. Yes, the car is highly priced for a Subaru. Yes, the car's rear end is ugly. Still, with all of those factors, the Tribeca was only 1,610 units behind the Forester in the month of November. Not bad.
The connection being Malcolm Bricklin was the guy who originally brought Subaru here. But that was his one success, every other idea he's had has bombed (ex: Yugo).
Chery and other Chinese makes are still using ripped off designs of old, outdated competitors, like the Isuzu Rodeo. Crash testing in europe proved that, with devastating results. Panel gaps are visibly off on their concepts.
I don't think they can really have an impact on a market like the USA until they get their act together, there isn't much demand for a cheap/unsafe vehicle.
Not really ... as Bob said, the entire powertrain (engine, trans, AWD system) was carry-over, and the chassis is just a stretched Legacy. Sure they were aiming for more production volume to fill up the excess capacity, but I don't think the investment was really all that big.
They spent a lot more for the Legacy/Outback debut a year earlier, even put us up in the Bellagio for a first drive. For the Tribeca, the group of 12 shrunk to just 4 of us at the auto show debut and the first drive hosted just 2 (me and Bob). And Valley Forge PA ain't no Vegas Bellagio!
The Big Investment happened a year earlier, on the 2005 Legacy and Outback. The Tribeca debut was comparatively "low budget".
I'm told Tribeca sales are down 26%
Sales keep growing and haven't peaked yet. I don't call that a flop.
So, what's a flop? The Saab 9-2x. They forecast just 8000 sales, yet the pace was closer to 2000. 1/4 of a modest forecast. Flop city. Flop-a-roni.
I'm not calling it a success, but I'll stand by my earlier statement that it's too soon to tell. For a relatively small investment the sales almost match the Impreza, and at higher transactions prices. I bet they stand to make an operating profit off the Tribeca, though legacy costs (pardon the pun) might keep them from a profit overall.
Tribeca actually outsold Legacy. You have to subtract the Outback total from the Legacy total. For whatever reason, Subaru still lumps the Outback with Legacy. I guess they look at it this way: out of 5,522 Legacy-based models sold, 3,612 were Outbacks. The math leaves non-Outback Legacy with 1,910... 219 less than Tribeca.
Totally agree. You and I are of the same thought--it is too early to tell. I still think the sales, while they may be off, are encouraging, not disapointing.
Another point worth considering--who is buying those Tribecas? If the buyer is a traditional Subaru buyer, then the Tribeca is playing a very strategic role. Without the Tribeca, Subaru would have lost that buyer looking for a larger vehicle. My guess to Honda and the Pilot. Or, suppose that buyer has never driven a Subaru? The Tribeca has achieved its purpose of introducing the Subaru brand to a whole new family of car buyers. A family with a Tribeca, may look at an Impreza for a graduating senior.
This raises the question of how successful does the Tribeca have to be for it to be successful for Subaru? The numbers won't tell the whole story.
Comments
Yes, Baja failed. That we can all agree on. Nice try, just didn't work.
I think Tribeca has not been a failure, however. I think (and I could be wrong) that after one or two iterations, Tribeca will be a very strong car and a reasonable option. So I would say they did a nice job with Tribeca and it should be considered a success. I also think Subaru was key in creating a new market with its WRX and STI. You can argue that was/is a new market and they've been successful there.
In my book, that is two for three, not bad.
More impoortantly, and I think this is why Subaru is so strong--they've been steadily improving and growing their core products--Legacy, Outback and Forester--while expanding into street territory (WRX/STI) and the three seater (Tribeca).
From a business perspective, that's hard to do and, in my mind, they are doing it nicely. It's not like Ford or GM where they swing for the fences with a new savior car every other year. You can afford to expand, grow and yes fail, if your core business franchise is strong, which it appears to be.
One final note. I am suspect on the speculations about Subaru's business. I hear the Indiana plant is in the red. Fuji Heavy Industries is in trouble, etc. I just don't see credible financial information supporting those assertions. Wonder if we should have a forum about Subaru financial performance? That way we could move from assertions to more sound financial analysis?
Here's a real test. When it comes to the quality of the cars, the reputation of the cars and the brand loyalty of its buyers, how many car companies wish they were Subaru?
2) There may also be a 7-passenger Forester in the works.
See Subaru Crew "Future Models" thread for more details.
Bob
we drive Subarus specifically because they offer good quality and yet are understated and we like to keep it simple and unpretentious
Agreed, but this is one of the obstacles for the Tribeca. It falls outside the usual mold for them.
look at the improvement they've made in the quality of their interiors and the fabrics alone
Agreed, and if anyone disagrees please take one peek at a Forester's head liner. Now go to the VW Phaeton, a $70k luxury car, and you'll find the identical material used there.
9-2x: FHI liked it for the economies of scale. Gunma factory liked it for more production. SoA hated it, they had to share a hot product. Subaru Dealers hated it, they now had to compete with Saab, and even worse, GM Employee Pricing.
Overall, the 9-2x did more harm than good. It left a bad taste on the whole GM deal, and SoA was cheering loudly when they found out about the Toyota deal. In fact that was unanimous, I have yet to hear a single opinion from any source against that deal.
Note: I was not against the 9-2x, I understood the need for economies of scale and just didn't want to see a Subaru badge on a product without AWD and a boxer engine, so the 9-2x didn't offend me.
-juice
The important critera is that the Tribeca has not lived up to Subaru's sales goal. That's the single important indicator. No they won't say it's a failure but IMHO, if you don't meet your own goal - it is.
One final note. I am suspect on the speculations about Subaru's business. I hear the Indiana plant is in the red. Fuji Heavy Industries is in trouble, etc. I just don't see credible financial information supporting those assertions.
Here is but one recent article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113010242495976955-search.html?
Financially, Fuji is not in a stellar conditon. They won't be going out of business today but they have to do something to prop up stock price and profitability.
How about the rest of the interior? My wife nixed the Legacy because she deemed it "cheap" inside. It may be functional and last a long time, but she didn't feel the value.
There was nothing wrong with "upscale WRX" concept. The problem was it was not upscale at all. The only thing separating WRX and 9-2X was exterior styling, 2 year maintenance (3 oil changes), 4 year warranty and a few month headstart in interior. Pricing for 9-2X Linear was lunacy running amok - about 6 grand premium on sticker! Aero was slightly better. If they made real Swedish interior (unique to the car) with good upscale touches, the car would actually have had potential for people like me.
Also clueless dealers and probably marketing execs pushed automatic transmission on both Linear and Aero trims. How stupid one must be to believe a lame 4 speed no-manual shift (good for economy compact) would sell on 20-30K "premium compact" car, as it was being presented. One look on Subaru's 02-03 sales would tell them that manuals was the way to go, especially on Aero.
I'm glad it's over so we won't have more idiotic projects like those. My only concern in Toyota deal is that Subaru will move too much "mainstream" and their Legacies will look and drive like Camrys in 5-8 years from now. If not that, the packaging, which is already frustrating, will turn into a Auto-[non-permissible content removed] "you can't have sunroof without Navigation and xenon lights" nightmare. I hope I'm wrong, though.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
I agree with everything you write. Personally, I was hoping that the Subaru-Saab "arrangement" would have worked. I really like the design and aesthetics of the Saabs. The trouble I have is that they can be fickle cars and a tad unreliable. Of course, the Subaru is anything but fickle. However, the design and aesthetics are just not great. Could have been the perfect marriage. We looked closely at the 92-X. It looked good and we were leaning toward it. Unfortunately, when we started to hear GM talk about breaking from Subaru--hence killing the partnership--that made us nervous and we stayed with Subaru.
Sad really because it could have been an interesting and innovative partnership.
Has it been a runaway success, no? Has it been a total disaster, most likely not. In my post, I made the comment that in a few iterations, the car could be a winner. It might not be there yet, but I don't think that the car is a failure. In my mind, the jury is still out on the Tribeca.
Two comments on sales. First, we don't know what Subaru's actual sales goals are for the Tribeca. Certainly, they may make public statements saying how many cars they want to sell, but that is generally not indicative of what they actually want to sell. My guess is that they are generally pleased in private. Although, it would be nice to have a marketing person from Subaru join the forum and comment on the sales of the Tribeca. Second, it is still too early to make a judgement. I think Subaru is behind the Tribeca for the long haul, they need a vehicle with three rows. My sense is they will pleased as long as they have steady growth. The Japanese car companies are like that. They don't get too caught up in quarter to quarter sales. They like to take a longer view.
As for the finances, thank you for posting the link. I would like to see the article but I don't get the WSJ online. I would like to look more closely at Fuji. I've heard mixed data. Again, a forum for investigating the finances of Fuji is warranted.
I come back to my first question. How many automakers would trade places with Subaru--despite any of its potential challenges? My guess is quite a few.
IIRC, their goal was 3K per month in the first year. An article I googled showed they'll hit about 26K in the first year - that's about 2,200 per month. Target missed by over 26%.
This was also posted by a Subaru insider:
mayberryguy, "Subaru's fortunes sinking - can they turn it around?" #1167, 16 Nov 2005 6:07 pm
I come back to my first question. How many automakers would trade places with Subaru--despite any of its potential challenges? My guess is quite a few.
For profitability - maybe GM and Ford.
For market share - SAAB, VW, Isuzu.
For customer loyalty - you might be suprised - maybe not as many as you think:
http://www.jdpa.com/studies_jdpower/pressrelease.asp?StudyID=1077
As a businessman, I think a miss on a target of 26% is not that bad for a first year product (call me an optimist). Obviously, not cause for a celebration, but clearly something to build on. I think they have a decent car and they need to do some tweaking to the business model. Two dealers that I talked to last weekend said they were not moving the Tribecas on their lots, but that interest was definitely picking up. Both were cautious but upbeat and optimistic. As I have stated, the jury is still out and we'll see how the car is doing in two to three years.
I am not a big believer in JD Power. I have problems with their methodology. I think Consumer Reports is statistically more significant and has a bigger--and more credible--market reach. I've also seen other reports that document Subaru buyers are some of the most loyal car buyers there are.
If you look at Consumer Reports, every product Subaru makes is marked "recommended." If I were asked to be the CEO of any auto company, I would choose Subaru over any of the other car companies you list. GM and Ford have terrible product lines and are in terrible financial shape. I love Saab but they have no SUV and no all wheel drive--the two must haves for a car line. VW is in rough shape, but, I agree, interesting. Isuzu--they still make cars?
By the way, this is not to say that Subaru is not without its problems. It is just that I would take their problems over the problems of many of the other car companies any day.
You're an optimist!!
In my business, miss by 26% and you may not get the opportunity to try again. Product planners and marketers are supposed to know the business. IMHO, 26% off target is miserable - especially when the investment is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
I am not a big believer in JD Power. I have problems with their methodology. I think Consumer Reports is statistically more significant and has a bigger--and more credible--market reach.
I posted the JD Power link since it was in my e-mail this morning. In fact, I think Subaru did very well in customer retention. But I bet most folks figuered they would be in the top 3.
As for CR, I don't use them for comparisons. They test everything like it's an appliance. But they are unbiased.
As for the car lines I listed, that was in response to your query as to what companies would change places with Subaru - not that they were better than Subaru.
And yes, Saab dooes offer an SUV - the 9-7X. Not that it's a real Saab but it is an SUV.
Overall, I like the Subaru brand. But like Hondaphiles and BMWnistas, the Subaholics sometimes feel the criticism is unwarranted and take it as a personal attack. No vehicle is perfect nor is any manufacturer. I should know - I just bought a VW but I did it knowingly.
Yep. I am an optimist! Plus, I believe that you have to take the longer view. I am against the quarter to quarter sales mentality running a company. I think that has been a huge driver of Toyota's success. Again, a miss of 26% percent is not fun, but I think you have to look at other factors and I think they point to the long-term viability of the Tribeca, with a few adjustments.
I agree with you on Consumer Reports--but they are hugely influential. I just can't help but feel most auto companies would be jealous of Subaru. Great cars. High brand loyalty. Famous reliability. Overall, a true winner.
However, don't get me wrong. Subaru drives me absolutely nuts. You won't find me suggesting that Subaru is not worthy of attack. I wouldn't dream of taking it personally.
Care to add any more?
Overall, and I have always maintained, Subaru does the big things better than most--price, quality, reliability, all wheel drive and value. Yet, they can't do the small things at all.
I would like to grab a few of the senior executives at Subaru and take them to a Saab, Land Rover, Audi or even a Nissan dealer and walk them through the experience. Then do the same for most (not all) Subaru dealers. I think they would be horrified.
How's that for a dedicated Subaholic?
Yet, all that said, I'd still rather be in Subaru's shoes than Saab's shoes (even though I used to own Saabs and loved those cars).
The exception is the seemingly mandatory fake-aluminum plastic (pluminum?), which would look better in matte black or even plood. It looks too "sport compact" and not at all upscale.
Legacy is selling well, the model's sales are way up, and I keep looking at prices and note that starting prices are a good $4-5 grand higher than they were when we bought our 2002 Legacy.
Tribeca hasn't turned out to be a Baja or an Outback Sedan
Thanks, duly noted.
Remember, Tribeca sales keep growing, and have not peaked yet. It's too early to call.
-juice
It shows some footage of the Forester and Outback driving over gravel and spinning out on dirt, with a narrater plugging the AWD, 5-star safety rating, mpg averages (obviously non-turbo figures), etc, as well as the current $1000 rebate.
Relatively simple, but still one of the more intelligent Subaru commercials in recent memory - definitely moreso than the Dust In The Wind ads. Market your strong suits, it's not that difficult.
Subaru went with the H6 on the Outback, probably because the SUV alternatives came with 6 cylinder engines and they wanted to match them. Plus it's their best seller, so naturally it's the favorite to get anything new.
The GT got the turbo, and surprisingly that turned out to be a good decision, sales are strong and in fact the proportion of Legacy sales (vs. Outback) increased, particularly for the GT, particularly for sedans.
The Spec B model Legacy in Japan actually gets an H6+6 speed manual, a sweet powertrain, but Subaru sells it here with the turbo-4 and a 5 speed probably because they didn't have to re-certify it for EPA.
The Spec B should get a 6 speed next year, but we hear it will still keep the turbo engine.
-juice
2018 430i Gran Coupe
2018 430i Gran Coupe
It makes more sense on the H6, which makes its power at higher revs, and has a more narrow power band.
-juice
Is it too soon to say that the Tribeca is a failure? Yes. But it's not too soon to report that it's first 7 or 8 months have been a failure. The initial sales estimates included the fact that it was a first year vehicle. Subaru has taken action based on current progress. So, I don't think it's too soon for us to read the writing on the wall.
Now I completely agree that pronouncing the whole model a dead-end is premature. Things could pick up. But they could just as easily get worse. If Subaru makes changes to the vehicle, it could very well recover. But those changes will cost money, which cuts deeper into the profitability of the vehicle. And if those changes don't work... they've thrown good money after bad.
Anyway, keep the faith, Jpfkk. Just keep in mind nobody owns a reliable crystal ball and we can only make judgement based on what we've seen so far.
As far as a facelift, I think Subaru will react quickly to get it on the '07 (or '07.5?) rather than waiting 'til '08. Maybe the Europeans will like the current face better, though. Could they produce a different face for two markets?
here's the link
The same could be said of the Honda Ridgeline—and you know I don't consider that a failure. Disappointing, yes. Failure, no.
Subaru, like Honda, will get the receipe correct. I look forward to seeing v.1.1 (v.1.2?) of both models, as I expect many of the criticisms addressed.
Bob
Look at the Tribeca. The styling is all new, but a lot of the running gear is pretty much carried over from the Outback, or is "tweaked" from that being used on the Outback. Historically what Subaru does (at least with recent history) is to offer a new model (styling, etc.), and then over the course of the product's life cycle, make the mechanical and package content upgrades that we all wish had occurred when the vehicle was first introduced.
When Honda and others, introduce a new model, that model remains as is (unless there is a problem of some sort) for pretty much the entire life-cycle of that model. There may be a subtle mid-life styling refresh, like what just happened with the Accord, but that's pretty much it. Subaru on the other hand makes subtle additions and/or tweaks to package content every year. They're constantly refining the package. So I expect in the next year or so to see more power, and many of the other things we all would like to see.
One good thing about Subaru is that they listen to customers. About a year before the current Forester was introduced, Patti (the rep from SOA, who used to be a member of the Subaru Crew), asked the Crew what we would like to see in the (then) new Forester. When the vehicle debut, eight items we asked for made it into production. That I know for a fact, as Patti said so. The fact the Subaru is quickly moving to make the front styling more agreeable to more customers is just one more example of this.
Bob
All I'm saying is, when it comes to expanding their line-up beyond their core wagons, things haven't been so rosy.
BTW, yes, Subaru could create a different variation for the european, african, and south american markets. So long as the basic parts (headlights, grill, etc.) stay in the same place, they can make quite a few changes.
I'm told Tribeca sales are down 26%.
For the sake of discussion, how far off do sales have to be before you'd consider a vehicle worthy of flop status?
BTW, yes, Subaru does a very good job of making continuous improvements to their line of cars. Recently, Nissan has also been very good at this. It's expensive, but it's also a good way to keep models competitive.
Now, I don't track Subaru's sales figures as well as you have, so let me ask you this... Have those improvements resulted in higher sales figures, or have they maintained the sales pace?
I'm fairly new to this discussion. Down 26% from what??
I was a Tribec being followed by an MDX yesterday (from the side), both black. They really weren't that much different, other than the Beca was much "busier" with the details, creases, etc.
Just redoing the front and rear ends (the "easy" parts to restyle) could go a long way toward making the Tribeca a handsome stylish vehicle, as opposed to a overdone (IMO) stylish vehicle, which would probably help sales noticeably.
They also seem to have the same problem as Ford, in that the 3.0V6, while certainly adequate, is somewhat underwhelming, and lags the compitition, at least on paper. Any change of seeing a bigger displacement version of the flat 6? Maybe 3.3 or 3.5? 30 more HP and 30/40 maore torque would be nice.
Or, throw a Turbo on that baby!
Then, put some more focus on the 5 seat model, and make sure that the lower end of the market is supported (that is, don't try to sell all 40K loaded models) and it should do just fine.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Their own projections.
Do "you" consider it a flop? I don't.
I'm told Tribeca sales are down 26%.
The sales are climbing every month. They can only be "down" if you're comparing it to previous months or years, which is not the case. Are they meeting monthly projections? No, hence the upcoming facelift, and probably other other upgrades too. I don't know the percentage that they are off. Don't forget, the unexpected $3.00+ gas didn't help either.
For the sake of discussion, how far off do sales have to be before you'd consider a vehicle worthy of flop status?
Not sure. Maybe someone with a "business administration" background (not me) could help define what is generally accepted in the industry as a "flop." I'd say the Baja is a "sales" flop, but not a flop as a "product." You ask just about any Baja owner if they're happy with their purchase, and I'd say most are. It's more of a case of bad product planning than anything else.
BTW, yes, Subaru does a very good job of making continuous improvements to their line of cars. Recently, Nissan has also been very good at this. It's expensive, but it's also a good way to keep models competitive.
True. It also keeps Subaru in the news every year, which results in continuous "brand awareness," which is good.
Now, I don't track Subaru's sales figures as well as you have, so let me ask you this... Have those improvements resulted in higher sales figures, or have they maintained the sales pace?
I have no idea. It certainly can't hurt sales.
Bob
Marketing types may claim otherwise, but sales forecasting is much more of an art than a science. What looks like disappointing sales figures for the 'beca might be the result of over-optimistic forecasting rather than poor sales per se.
I just bought an 06 3.0R Wagon. When I was doing my inventory search on various dealer sites I was amazed to find some new 2003 Baja's for sale here in Minneapolis. If they really were new, I would most definitely call that a "sales" flop.
I also hate SUV's...all of them, Tribeca included. IMO, they're ugly as hell, and they're dangerous at speed. Make a sudden avoidance move at 70 mph on the interstate and you'd better have your seat belt on tight..you may be tipping! It's incredible to me that people think these things are "safe." The higher up you sit, the higher your center of gravity, and Physics was a course I managed to pass in high school.
Give me my GT's low center of gravity any day. And it's got all the "utility" I need.
I am very tempted by the new GT Wagons. Test drove an 05 and was amazed by the speed! Like the looks too.
The VDC that is included standard on the Tribeca, and Outback 3.0 VDC edition goes a long, long way towards preventing the initial loss of control which leads to the rollover by helping keep the car pointed where the driver is pointing it. I wish Subaru would offer it on their other models. I think the vast majority of SUV's sold in the US will have it by 2007.
IIRC, the critical safety failure of the Corvair (as Ralph Nader so well documented) was that the car could roll over in sharp but non-emergency cornering even without the tires' hitting any obstructions.
I know this for a fact—and first-hand—as I rolled a '62 VW many years ago, just after I got my driver's license.
Bob
I do not consider the Tribeca to be a design flop. (styling flop = yes design flop = no) For the past 15 years or so, Subaru has been successfully selling the Outback as their alternative to the mid-size SUV. In recent years, the segment has grown bigger than the Outback can reasonably get. So building something larger makes perfect sense.
The Tribeca, as an entry into the larger part of the segment, is an overall good design. It's a bit weak in the engine, but everything else from content to quality is in order.
I agree with some (not all) of your assessments. I would use the word "disappointment," not "flop," however. To me the word "flop" means complete and utter failure. I don't regard the Tribeca in that way.
Bob
At 4% under forecasts, no. At 15-20% or more under forecasts, yes.
However, as outlined in the above post, there's more than one way to be a flop. The Element, for example, sold well over expectations, but did not significantly improve the brand's image with the youth. Which was the Element's secondary mission. So it was a sales success and a mission flop.
With that in mind, I consider the Ridgeline more or less sales neutral, but a mission flop since it has not boosted the brand's image with truck buyers.
Don't forget, the unexpected $3.00+ gas didn't help either.
Pilot, Highlander, and several other crossovers had increases in sales during the same period. Given the good EPA estimates for the Tribeca I would have thought gas prices were an advantage for it.
Gotta go.. Critter is crying.
The good thing is that, unlike American car companies, who would respond to such a slow start with automatic price slashing, Subaru does have a tendency to take in the criticisms and evolve the product. If you read the article, nothing in it can't be fixed. As I have said in this forum repeatedly, let's see where Tribeca is in year three. That will be crucial.
By the way, according to Subaru's Web site, the company sold 14,521 cars in November. Given that Tribeca is new, the numbers are not bad:
Tribeca: 2,129
Legacy: 5,522
Outback: 3,612
Impreza: 2,692
Forester: 3,739
An half-glass empty person would suggest that Tribeca is the worst selling Subaru model (setting aside Baja, of course).
A half-glass full person would suggest that:
1) The company makes a lot more on a Tribeca than its other model lines (at least it is not unreasonable to assume that).
2) For a new car, in a new market for the company, to be selling roughly 38% of the number of vehicles that the long-standing and best selling Legacy model is at least enough for me to say the jury is still out and a more positive future for the Tribeca can be achieved with improvement.
In sum, yes, Tribeca missed its sales numbers. Yes, the car is highly priced for a Subaru. Yes, the car's rear end is ugly. Still, with all of those factors, the Tribeca was only 1,610 units behind the Forester in the month of November. Not bad.
Chery and other Chinese makes are still using ripped off designs of old, outdated competitors, like the Isuzu Rodeo. Crash testing in europe proved that, with devastating results. Panel gaps are visibly off on their concepts.
I don't think they can really have an impact on a market like the USA until they get their act together, there isn't much demand for a cheap/unsafe vehicle.
-juice
Not really ... as Bob said, the entire powertrain (engine, trans, AWD system) was carry-over, and the chassis is just a stretched Legacy. Sure they were aiming for more production volume to fill up the excess capacity, but I don't think the investment was really all that big.
They spent a lot more for the Legacy/Outback debut a year earlier, even put us up in the Bellagio for a first drive. For the Tribeca, the group of 12 shrunk to just 4 of us at the auto show debut and the first drive hosted just 2 (me and Bob). And Valley Forge PA ain't no Vegas Bellagio!
The Big Investment happened a year earlier, on the 2005 Legacy and Outback. The Tribeca debut was comparatively "low budget".
I'm told Tribeca sales are down 26%
Sales keep growing and haven't peaked yet. I don't call that a flop.
So, what's a flop? The Saab 9-2x. They forecast just 8000 sales, yet the pace was closer to 2000. 1/4 of a modest forecast. Flop city. Flop-a-roni.
I'm not calling it a success, but I'll stand by my earlier statement that it's too soon to tell. For a relatively small investment the sales almost match the Impreza, and at higher transactions prices. I bet they stand to make an operating profit off the Tribeca, though legacy costs (pardon the pun) might keep them from a profit overall.
-juice
The math leaves non-Outback Legacy with 1,910... 219 less than Tribeca.
Totally agree. You and I are of the same thought--it is too early to tell. I still think the sales, while they may be off, are encouraging, not disapointing.
Another point worth considering--who is buying those Tribecas? If the buyer is a traditional Subaru buyer, then the Tribeca is playing a very strategic role. Without the Tribeca, Subaru would have lost that buyer looking for a larger vehicle. My guess to Honda and the Pilot. Or, suppose that buyer has never driven a Subaru? The Tribeca has achieved its purpose of introducing the Subaru brand to a whole new family of car buyers. A family with a Tribeca, may look at an Impreza for a graduating senior.
This raises the question of how successful does the Tribeca have to be for it to be successful for Subaru? The numbers won't tell the whole story.
Subaru has always done well in niches, and maybe the Legacy is too mainstream for them to do a lot of volume.
-juice