That's not quite what I meant - often people flock to Subaru in order to find a less pricey alternative to Audi or Volvo. So basically they except more (near-lux content) for less (mainstream price).
The Tribeca offers more for....well, more than people are used to paying for Subarus. In other words, content isn't the problem, it's just the price itself is out of the comfort level for traditional buyers.
I guess I don't see 60k annual sales happening. Remember that Ford has about several times as many dealers (Subaru has about 600, anyone know the actual number for Ford?).
Andre - I'd be happy with a base/cloth Tribeca model, yet the 7 seater is still $32k or so. It's a huge gap from the cloth Forester, a gap that to me the Outback doesn't quite fill.
I'm curious to see the next Forester as well, and Subaru has the chance to examine the RAV4 closely before they launch it for MY08.
Well now, there's a post I can respond to. Thanks.
If you'd like, I can respond to why I think those quotes are directly relevant (to the issue of why we butt heads). Ask, and I will. But for now I'll stick with my styling critique of the Tribeca and the vehicle's impact on the brand's success.
In my opinion, the Tribeca is not merely radical for Subaru. It would be radical for any company operating here in North America.
Your opinion that the Tribeca is merely "different" has merit. But only in an academic sense.
In reality, there are such things as beautiful and ugly. Like it or not, these are largely democratic values. Popular opinion determines what falls into each category. Look at different cultures and you'll find different notions of beauty. Why? Popular opinion within that culture. In the cultures of North America, we do not prize several of the Tribeca's features. Therefore it is ugly in the way we define the word.
In a discussion about the success or failure of a company, I think the reality of public opinion holds far more weight than an academic notion.
I am not disappointed that Subaru may change the looks of a vehicle. Holding true to ideals which are tried and true is one thing. Holding onto a design maligned nearly to death is just plain foolish. A design described as "Loud, harsh, grating, or shrill" is not a principle. A schnoz and set of love handles does not provide any ethical merit.
No, I applaud Subaru for taking action to improve the vehicle. It bodes well for the future success of the company. And, yes, that is something I would like to see.
What impresses me is how influential the European brands can be. Especially the exotics.
Look closely at an Enzo, they're hideous. Inspired by F1 cars, sure, but in an ear where F1 cars aren't particularly attractive either.
And check out this grille:
This is the poster going up on kids' walls today, like it or hate it.
Perhaps if Subaru had timed the launch a year later, people might have drawn a parallel and liked it more. Too bad we never got the Alfa Kamal (pic below), again that would have prepared people for the bold face better.
I'm willing to bet, that in the long run, Bangle will be regarded quite highly as an automotive designer.
It takes guts and conviction to do what he did, and I applaud him for it. The easiest thing for him to have done is play it safe and designed another "pretty (but expected)" BMW.
I see the new BMW look, like the new Subaru look, to be "works in progress." They're both somewhat unresolved, but each new rendition of their respective look gets better and better. I think the recent 6-Series to be a complete success.
Note the chrome-ringed grille flanked by similar wings. It actually looks more like the Tribeca than Alfas do.
What I find interesting is that people give exotic cars a free pass, perhaps the performance is paramount and they'll accept whatever the design ends up looking like. I don't like the Enzo or the SLR at all, yet the Bugatti above seems more romantic to me.
I think it's a great modern interpretation of what a Bugatti should look like. If you look at any of the Bugattis from the past, there's a strong visual link to those cars.
But the thing to keep in mind, in the case of the Enzo at least, is that that shape serves an aerodynamic purpose. It is not styling for the sake of styling like some cars.
Yes, the WRX does look better than the Tribeca. I don't love it, but it's not bad. It'll probably grow on me. But there are significant differences between the WRX and the Tribeca.
First, if we swapped my manly, hairy chest with the bosom of Tyra Banks, neither one of us would look very good. (Sorry, it's probably too early in the day for that reference.)
It's not just what you use, it's how you use it.
That applies here. The WRX is small car while the Tribeca is a cross-over SUV. Most cars don't have very large grills. Many get by with a small slit for a grill because the facade of a car is not meant to be big and blunt or especially aggressive. Sleek is probably a better way to shape a nose for a car. SUVs (even cross-overs) are styled with a different attitude. A wide, blunt, forceful facade is needed to convey a massive quality. This is necessary to make sense of the large body following it. Without boring everyone with specifics, the Tribeca's facade is not up to the task.
Second, the face on the WRX, although similar, is not the same. It's got far less visual mass and is more proportionate with other strong elements of the facade (like the headlights).
Third, the Tribeca suffers from more than just a bad nose job. There's the hood lines, the creases on the sides (which I call love handles and Bob's article calls "unfathomable"), and the Quest-like slant to the rear. By themselves I don't think any one of these cues would have caused a big ruckus. All together, they also present a problem.
are not art, especially mid-market, workaday, soccer mom-mobiles.
Having "exciting new design language" is one thing, having a car that is UNIVERSALLY thought of as perhaps the ugliest on the market is quite another. Whether or not the Aztek was innovative in styling, it did GM's ego and sales no good that it was the butt of every automotive styling joke there was for several years. Tribeca would be headed down that road if they were not going to redesign it so quickly.
It's not that the customer is always right, Bob, it is just that if you do not bow to customer likes and dislikes, you don't sell as many vehicles.
Yes, the 7-series and then 5-series seemed to continue selling fairly well after the Bangle-ization, but these are fairly unique models with a very devoted following, meaning that buyers would be fairly forgiving with one muck-up in styling. Yet look how BMW backed away from the the aggressive Bangle-izing when it came time to redesign the 3-series, their volume model. Because in that segment BMW has a lot more direct competition, and because BMW could not afford for the 3-series to drop in sales.
And the Tribeca does not even benefit from a previously devoted following, as it is a new model.
And BTW, add me to the list of people that really dislike the current Infiniti styling - there isn't one model they make I would buy even if I were in the market for a luxury car. Of the whole line, the G is the only moderately acceptable one. The FX looks positively cartoonish. The other cars are just ugly.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That kind of thinking results in boring cars. Look how competent the Acura RL is, great power, sophisticated AWD, class leading content - yet it's an also-ran in a class it should be leading.
They pitch the Tribeca as a Progressive SUV, they weren't aiming for conservative. The people that have bought one love the styling, and the numbers aren't that far off projections.
You're both claiming the Tribeca is universally thought of as ugly, that's just false. Yes, it's had a lot of criticism, but certainly not universal. Otherwise we'd all be agreeing with each other.
it's a little ironic that when the Tribeca first came out, I mentioned that it was priced too high for what it was, and almost everybody was saying stuff like "no, no, look at competing models, and the Tribeca is better than them, and it's right in the middle of the market", and on and on, and now six months later everyone seems to think that it's priced too high for what it is.
Oh really? :-P
As to "universal", OK maybe dislike of the Tribeca's looks is not UNIVERSAL, but I have yet to see any professional review PRAISE its looks, or even get all the way through without making at least one denigrating remark or crack at its expense. I mean, if one reviewer could get through without mentioning the looks at all, it would be an improvement for this model. People I know that I have asked all dislike the looks, and some have gone so far as to say stuff like "God, how could they make a car that ugly?"
The Aztek has a small but devoted following, and I understand that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But does Subaru really want the Tribeca to have a similar following?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I agree with Juice that there is no such thing as "universally ugly". But there is a consensus on the subject. And the concensus matches it with the Tribeca.
I put in a question to a contact at SoA, I'm trying to find out what % of buyers moved up from other Subarus, vs. conquest sales from other brands.
Purely anecdotal here, but the salesman that sold me my Outback said the demographics of the Tribeca sales were not at all what they were aiming for, but rather an entirely different crowd. What that means, I have no idea.
but I have yet to see any professional review PRAISE its looks, or even get all the way through without making at least one denigrating remark or crack at its expense.
Last comment. I promise.
Professional review? You mean that road test editors are "professional design critics?"
How about me then? 30+ years as a graphic designer (much in "high-end" corporate and institutional design) and adjunct faculty member of one on the nation's leading leading art collages for over 10 years. I'm a supporter. Does that count as being "professional?"
C'mon now, you gotta listen up better than that if you're gonna bad mouth me.
I'm saying people expect Subarus to cost less even when they do offer more. It's an unfair expectation that Subaru can't seem to get over, perhaps a legacy from the "inexpensive and built to stay that way" days.
Price is fair given the content. Here is a price comparo I did for vehicles with heated leather, DVD, NAV, S/C, AWD, and upgraded rims when available (retail price at the time of the launch of the Tribeca):
Now that Subaru's production deficit at SIA may be resolved (thanks Toyota!), I think the slow sales of the Tribeca are less of an issue. But to make up for past years, I don't think Subaru can be picky about who buys the car. A sale is a sale.
They can worry about market reach after their house is in order (hopefully soon).
Sorry Bob if I used the word professionals incorrectly. I use it as shorthand for people who work in the car industry, or who are paid to critique it (think car mag editors with that last). If you work in car design, or teaching car design at the art college, then you would be a professional too, yes. At least, as I am using this shorthand.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Juice, I think we have seen this list somewhere before! Oh wait, we saw it in one of your posts! ;-)
So then what should they have done?
I think you compare it to a whole lot of vehicles no prospective buyers will ever compare it to, including ML, X5, Cayenne, SRX, LR3, RX330, Aviator, MDX, and on. Take out the "entry-level lux" makes and the proper "luxury" makes, and just include Toyotas and Chevys (so to speak), and the list is much more daunting for the Tribeca. Indeed, they are all about the same price. But Subaru must also overcome little public awareness of the brand, a small dealer network, and weird styling. Which means it should have cost less than the others.
The Outback gained so much success as a new model by pretending to do everything the larger SUVs would do, but for a lower price. As a result, it gained lots of sales. The Tribeca must forge a brand new path for itself by doing the same thing.
Now should they have decontented it to get it to a $27K price? Yeah, maybe they should have done that instead. Even Honda offers DX and LX models. Not everyone wants an "EX".
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I saw an A8 this morning. I think it is a really good looking car, and really nice. It got me thinking, if VW can't sell a $70,000 Audi, what made them think they could sell a $70,000 VW. In my opinion, the Phaeton is $70,000 worth of car, but I would crazy to pay that because the market doesn't agree. (Not to mention that my local VW dealer is a converted Olds dealer with the same awful sales and service staff.)
In my view the Tribeca exhibits a decidedly European appearance, more French or Italian than Japanese. Interestingly though, all this Mediterranean flair is assembled in the good old USA - Indiana to be exact. Some folk furl their brow at the Tribeca's three-piece front grille arrangement, designed to appear as the wings and fuselage of an approaching plane. This concept is intended to pay homage to Subaru's aeronautic history. Other folks admire the controversial design for its artistic quality; either way credit must be given to Subaru for not cookie-cutting, although the Tribeca's side profile is somewhat similar to that of Nissan's sporty Murano thanks to a reverse raked "C" pillar, which may look dramatic but hinders rearward visibility when reversing
At the New York International Auto Show I had Sam Batchelor and Chris Estrella join me to give me their insightful teenage impressions of the new shows at the premier. They were sent down to look at certain cars and bring back their first thoughts. Since they had media badges they were able to sit in the cars and give it a once over. The Subaru B9 Tribeca was not on their list, so I was surprised when they came back with a surge of glee over the car.
Puts a Premium on Style Subaru says the Tribeca's "dose of high style" will "shake up" the SUV segment, and we agree. As are most of its competitors, the B9 is well built, well contented and comfortable, but unlike its long list of foes, it's cool-looking.
Although that look was pirated from the good folk at Alfa Romeo, it's the only and obvious reason to buy this B9 instead of its more staid Asian competition. Subaru not only knows this, it's counting on it.
So if you put a premium on style, then the 2006 Subaru B9 Tribeca, no matter how silly its name, is the midsize SUV to have. Nice going, Subaru.
From an article entitled "Subaru's First SUV Is Highly Styled and Strangely Named".
OK, so at first glance it's kind of funny looking. After a while it no longer looks funny, just different. And as Subaru continues to prove, different can be good
The B9 Tribeca's front fascia follows from the attractive B9 Scrambler concept, a roadster introduced at the 2003 Tokyo Motor Show. Inspired by Subaru's history as an airplane manufacturer during World War II, the bold, wing-like grille is an elegant and bold design feature that will serve well as the "face" of the brand.
It won't please everyone, but I've found that the exterior styling grows on you over time. Together, the B9 Tribeca and B9 Scrambler highlight the adventurous styling direction that will give shape to Subaru's future cars and SUVs
I still think of Subarus as small, durable, reliable workhorses. I like Subarus in general, but a Tribeca isn't even on my radar. It answers a question nobody asked (ok almost nobody), kinda like a Phaeton.
Fair or not, I can't help but think of it as a less attractive more expensive copy of a Murano.
I believe these guys were described as professional level automotive design critics... at least until we figured out the award isn't exactly praise for the design. Rather it is praise for trying something different.
Just out of curiousity, why did we think they're from the UK?
On a side note... Yes, Bob, I think you are qualified to give reliable input on design. I'd honestly like to hear your reasons for thinking the Tribeca is designed well. Which lines make sense? Which shapes evoke strong connections to positive attributes? Which parts of the object are most important? Despite your credentials, you rarely give us your view. Instead, the discussion wanders other places.
It's mid-size outside with three rows of seats inside, and a look that can only be called aggressive. Sounds great, but can it still be a Subaru?
curbside.com:
Some of the motoring press has criticized the appearance, others have been neutral but at the very least it definitely stands out. I like the look
carseek.com
The first thing you're likely to notice, however, is the styling, particularly that grille. It looks like something from an Alfa Romeo. Subaru's new chief designer came from Alfa, but he told us the grille was already set in stone when he arrived. The design of the Tribeca doesn't please everyone, but seems to grow on some people with time
I'm only about half way down Karen's site of links to reviews...
Any how, clearly there is NOT a consensus, and the opinions are NOT universal by any means. The opposite is true, it's controversial, with people in both camps.
Both of you fail to acknowledge that the other camp even exists.
Posting base prices would be MUCH more realistic and informative. Not everyone wants all the electric gagets and pimp daddy wheels!
Heck, a shrewd buyer could get a Caddy SRX in the VERY low 40's. Upper 30's for a 2WD model. MUCH better driving dynamics and styling than the Subie B9 Trifecta.
I'm comparing apples to apples, same equipment on all models, or at least as close as I could come. I put a 3rd row option whenever that was available (Murano does not offer it, though).
Subaru could perhaps drop the equipment level, that would please me, actually. Like I said, I don't need auto climate control or a power passenger seat. I'd be happier with unpainted bumpers, though I understand why they don't offer that.
Any how, I compared apples to apples as much as possible, same level of equipment.
in the face of overwhelming evidence, I concede defeat sir! Good show! :-)
I think I mostly read more mainstream media sources, whose reviews are probably intentionally consistent with each other.
So OK, it's not the styling. Half of everybody finds the Tribeca "bold, interesting, not unlike an Alfa Romeo" (of course, we know how much success Alfa had in the U.S.! :-P)
Then it's the price. Safety is right up there, Sube has a good rep for reliability in general, this model has the usual Sube attributes. It's either price or slow acceleration, and I doubt it's the latter all that much.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
UK? I read a link somewhere that "hinted" they were UK-based. Maybe that's incorrect.
As to specfics on design. I've learned the hard way that talking design here (and other car sites too) is a sure receipe for an ulcer. If I were addressing others in the design field (be it car design or graphic design), that would be different, as we speak the same language. That doesn't mean we would all agree, it just means we all share a common background and understanding.
Having said that...
I never said that the Tribeca's styling (not design, but styling) is good, or even great. What I've said is that is that Subaru needed to establish a visual identity of their own, that is uniquely theirs, not unlike MB, BMW, Volvo, etc. They needed a look that's instantly recognizable as their own. The vehicle should be identified by anyone without the use of a logo or a name badge. This design direction does exactly that. That's first and foremost—it solves that problem.
I've also said, more than once, that we haven't seen how far this design direction can go. It's "a work in progress," still evolving. We've seen many variations on this to date besides the Tribeca (R1, R2, '06 Impreza, B11S, B9SC, and B5TPH concepts). They all share this family look (very important!), yet they are all different. Some are better than others, but they all show great variation, and show that this look has the potental to evolve into something attractive.
Therefore I've defended the Tribeca as a logical "next step" in implimenting this new look. Is it successful? To a degree, yes. Is it 100% succesful? No.
Most people object to the very strong front end. That's the least of my worries. I'm much more concerned about the tiny porthole rear-quarter window, the rear legroom, the small 3.0 engine powering a 4200+ pound vehicle.
You say that's not looks or styling. That's true, but that is all part of the "design." "Styling" is nothing more than surface treatment. It's what you react to when you see it—and unfortunately (or fortunately) what often sells the vehicle. For me "design" of the entire vehicle is far more important than the shape of a grille, or headlights.
If it's important to you, yes, I like the grille and the headlights, or at least I don't mind them. I don't have any problems whatsoever with those shapes conflicting with other body elements, or the way they interact with the rest of the vehicle. I think for the most part the total design works for me. Yeah, I could tweak a few items (grille texture, size, etc.), and that could improve it. Frankly I think the wheelbase should be streched from 108.1" to around 113" and give all that extra room to the third row passengers. I think that would help it visually, in that it would look less chunky (and 3rd-row passengers would also get a bigger window to look out of).
So I admit that Subaru has pushed the limits as to what a Subaru should look like, but in the long run, I believe it will pay off. It's just a matter of getting past the first five years or so, while all their models adapt to the new look. I see this as a "bump in the road" that must be crossed. Nothing more.
It would have been better if Subaru had started this process 5 years ago and gradually tried to phase it in. They didn't do that. Instead, they're aggressively trying to do this in a very short time span. That's where I see the problem—doing too much, too quickly. The public needs time to adjust to this change. Forcing it on them too quickly can be counterproductive. I think that's what we're seeing here. People are balking because they see it as being rammed down their throats. I understand that.
My concern now is what Subaru is going to do about this. Are they just going to throw in the towel, and admit failure (failure as in selling the idea, not failure in the design direction).
I could sit here an nit-pic design details (grille, headlights, etc.) if you want, but I'm not sure that will help. That's just the frosting on the cake, that stuff is easy to refine. I'm much more concerned about the big picture as to how Subaru is going to proceed from this point forward. If they toss out out the Tribeca's grille design, what does that mean in terms of the new "design language" they've been promoting? Is that going to affect all the model lines? Or just the Tribeca? I think Subaru did a pretty good job phasing the new look in on the Impreza, considering they were stuck with a very awkward body shape to work with. If they give up on this new look for the Tribeca, will they also toss it on the Impreza?
I think Subaru has to be very careful from here on. I personally think they should stick to their guns, bite the bullet of criticism for a few years, and in the long run they will come out okay. If they change horses now—in mid stream—I just don't know... That could come back to haunt them even worse, than if they were to proceed forward with what they're doing.
Juice, I'll give you credit for finding a few reviews which are genuinely positive. The Edmunds "cool looking" remark and the Carlist one comes pretty close to the same.
I will also concede that you found more than I would have expected.
But... (you knew this was coming)
Several of these confess that their first glance wasn't a happy one. Or they confess that others won't like it. Or, like with the GUTS award, they are more concerned with praising the EFFORT than the results. Or they praise the Scambler for THAT car's use of similar styling cues and say little about the Tribeca.
Certainly you are correct in saying that these are NOT negative. But with the exception of the Edmunds and Carlist articles, they're pretty weak in terms of praising the styling.
If I had to guess (yes, guessing is happening here), I'd say 40% of the reviewers don't like it. 40% say it's controversial without giving it a thumbs up or down. And maybe 20% actually like it.
The links at the top of the page go to sites with US offices and the awards are given to vehicles from North America. So, I'm thinking it's a US publication. No biggie, just wanted to know if you knew something I didn't.
I understand the difference between styling and design. You are correct to make that distinction. However, I think it's pretty obvious just about everybody is talking about styling even though they may write "design".
I'm not sure that moving too quickly/abruptly is the problem. I mean, Cadillac certainly frightened people with their Art & Science styling. Infiniti didn't ease into their new style. But in both cases, it's worked.
I agree that Subaru should develop a brand image. I agree that they should not drop the airplane facade. I just think it need an extreme make-over to work on the front of the Tribeca.
My concern with the Tribeca sheetmetal is not that it will be difficult to get right (it might be a little costly, but too much). Rather I am concerned that they thought this was going to work. (What does that mean for future variants on this theme?) Will the Tribeca ever get over this initial hurdle? (You can't make a second first impression.) And I think you may share this last one... will it stop Subaru from being daring in the future?
Comments
That's not quite what I meant - often people flock to Subaru in order to find a less pricey alternative to Audi or Volvo. So basically they except more (near-lux content) for less (mainstream price).
The Tribeca offers more for....well, more than people are used to paying for Subarus. In other words, content isn't the problem, it's just the price itself is out of the comfort level for traditional buyers.
I guess I don't see 60k annual sales happening. Remember that Ford has about several times as many dealers (Subaru has about 600, anyone know the actual number for Ford?).
Andre - I'd be happy with a base/cloth Tribeca model, yet the 7 seater is still $32k or so. It's a huge gap from the cloth Forester, a gap that to me the Outback doesn't quite fill.
I'm curious to see the next Forester as well, and Subaru has the chance to examine the RAV4 closely before they launch it for MY08.
-juice
Pacifica tried the $35k price range but ended up retreating, I've seen them advertised for $27k.
If you'd like, I can respond to why I think those quotes are directly relevant (to the issue of why we butt heads). Ask, and I will. But for now I'll stick with my styling critique of the Tribeca and the vehicle's impact on the brand's success.
In my opinion, the Tribeca is not merely radical for Subaru. It would be radical for any company operating here in North America.
Your opinion that the Tribeca is merely "different" has merit. But only in an academic sense.
In reality, there are such things as beautiful and ugly. Like it or not, these are largely democratic values. Popular opinion determines what falls into each category. Look at different cultures and you'll find different notions of beauty. Why? Popular opinion within that culture. In the cultures of North America, we do not prize several of the Tribeca's features. Therefore it is ugly in the way we define the word.
In a discussion about the success or failure of a company, I think the reality of public opinion holds far more weight than an academic notion.
I am not disappointed that Subaru may change the looks of a vehicle. Holding true to ideals which are tried and true is one thing. Holding onto a design maligned nearly to death is just plain foolish. A design described as "Loud, harsh, grating, or shrill" is not a principle. A schnoz and set of love handles does not provide any ethical merit.
No, I applaud Subaru for taking action to improve the vehicle. It bodes well for the future success of the company. And, yes, that is something I would like to see.
We hear heavy criticism about "Bangle Butt" on all the new BMWs, yet sales are up worldwide and in the US.
Yet it's hard to find anyone that calls it pretty.
Give Bob credit - early on he kept telling people to give it time, to try to understand the design language. Noone listened to him (myself included).
Now he is laughing last.
Of course, BMW has the power and influence perhaps even to change the definition of what ugly is and isn't. That's a power Subaru does not enjoy.
-juice
-juice
Look closely at an Enzo, they're hideous. Inspired by F1 cars, sure, but in an ear where F1 cars aren't particularly attractive either.
And check out this grille:
This is the poster going up on kids' walls today, like it or hate it.
Perhaps if Subaru had timed the launch a year later, people might have drawn a parallel and liked it more. Too bad we never got the Alfa Kamal (pic below), again that would have prepared people for the bold face better.
-juice
Maybe, maybe not. The public may win—but that doesn't mean they're right.
I'm a firm believer that "the customer is always right" is a mere myth, if not an outright lie—and I'll stand by that belief till the day I die.
Remember the "public" hated the Impressionist art of the late 1800s, and now that art is priceless.
Bob
It takes guts and conviction to do what he did, and I applaud him for it. The easiest thing for him to have done is play it safe and designed another "pretty (but expected)" BMW.
I see the new BMW look, like the new Subaru look, to be "works in progress." They're both somewhat unresolved, but each new rendition of their respective look gets better and better. I think the recent 6-Series to be a complete success.
Bob
Note the chrome-ringed grille flanked by similar wings. It actually looks more like the Tribeca than Alfas do.
What I find interesting is that people give exotic cars a free pass, perhaps the performance is paramount and they'll accept whatever the design ends up looking like. I don't like the Enzo or the SLR at all, yet the Bugatti above seems more romantic to me.
-juice
Bob
The lights and "wings" are very much new, though.
-juice
Bob
If you want Subaru to die penniless, by all means... encourage the Tribeca's styling cues.
And, by the way, just because genius is sometimes poo-poo'ed doesn't mean that everything which is poo-poo is genius.
But the thing to keep in mind, in the case of the Enzo at least, is that that shape serves an aerodynamic purpose. It is not styling for the sake of styling like some cars.
-juice
The B9SC concept was also very handsome. The B11S was a bit extreme, but it won't make production anyway.
-juice
-juice
Bob
First, if we swapped my manly, hairy chest with the bosom of Tyra Banks, neither one of us would look very good. (Sorry, it's probably too early in the day for that reference.)
It's not just what you use, it's how you use it.
That applies here. The WRX is small car while the Tribeca is a cross-over SUV. Most cars don't have very large grills. Many get by with a small slit for a grill because the facade of a car is not meant to be big and blunt or especially aggressive. Sleek is probably a better way to shape a nose for a car. SUVs (even cross-overs) are styled with a different attitude. A wide, blunt, forceful facade is needed to convey a massive quality. This is necessary to make sense of the large body following it. Without boring everyone with specifics, the Tribeca's facade is not up to the task.
Second, the face on the WRX, although similar, is not the same. It's got far less visual mass and is more proportionate with other strong elements of the facade (like the headlights).
Third, the Tribeca suffers from more than just a bad nose job. There's the hood lines, the creases on the sides (which I call love handles and Bob's article calls "unfathomable"), and the Quest-like slant to the rear. By themselves I don't think any one of these cues would have caused a big ruckus. All together, they also present a problem.
Having "exciting new design language" is one thing, having a car that is UNIVERSALLY thought of as perhaps the ugliest on the market is quite another. Whether or not the Aztek was innovative in styling, it did GM's ego and sales no good that it was the butt of every automotive styling joke there was for several years. Tribeca would be headed down that road if they were not going to redesign it so quickly.
It's not that the customer is always right, Bob, it is just that if you do not bow to customer likes and dislikes, you don't sell as many vehicles.
Yes, the 7-series and then 5-series seemed to continue selling fairly well after the Bangle-ization, but these are fairly unique models with a very devoted following, meaning that buyers would be fairly forgiving with one muck-up in styling. Yet look how BMW backed away from the the aggressive Bangle-izing when it came time to redesign the 3-series, their volume model. Because in that segment BMW has a lot more direct competition, and because BMW could not afford for the 3-series to drop in sales.
And the Tribeca does not even benefit from a previously devoted following, as it is a new model.
And BTW, add me to the list of people that really dislike the current Infiniti styling - there isn't one model they make I would buy even if I were in the market for a luxury car. Of the whole line, the G is the only moderately acceptable one. The FX looks positively cartoonish. The other cars are just ugly.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
To each his own. None of the naysayers here have convinced me they are right, nor have I convinced them. So lets just agree to disagree.
Bob
That kind of thinking results in boring cars. Look how competent the Acura RL is, great power, sophisticated AWD, class leading content - yet it's an also-ran in a class it should be leading.
They pitch the Tribeca as a Progressive SUV, they weren't aiming for conservative. The people that have bought one love the styling, and the numbers aren't that far off projections.
You're both claiming the Tribeca is universally thought of as ugly, that's just false. Yes, it's had a lot of criticism, but certainly not universal. Otherwise we'd all be agreeing with each other.
-juice
In the Tribeca thread, a lot of people say they came from other car-based SUVs.
-juice
Oh really? :-P
As to "universal", OK maybe dislike of the Tribeca's looks is not UNIVERSAL, but I have yet to see any professional review PRAISE its looks, or even get all the way through without making at least one denigrating remark or crack at its expense. I mean, if one reviewer could get through without mentioning the looks at all, it would be an improvement for this model. People I know that I have asked all dislike the looks, and some have gone so far as to say stuff like "God, how could they make a car that ugly?"
The Aztek has a small but devoted following, and I understand that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But does Subaru really want the Tribeca to have a similar following?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Purely anecdotal here, but the salesman that sold me my Outback said the demographics of the Tribeca sales were not at all what they were aiming for, but rather an entirely different crowd. What that means, I have no idea.
Last comment. I promise.
Professional review? You mean that road test editors are "professional design critics?"
How about me then? 30+ years as a graphic designer (much in "high-end" corporate and institutional design) and adjunct faculty member of one on the nation's leading leading art collages for over 10 years. I'm a supporter. Does that count as being "professional?"
I'm outta here...
Bob
C'mon now, you gotta listen up better than that if you're gonna bad mouth me.
I'm saying people expect Subarus to cost less even when they do offer more. It's an unfair expectation that Subaru can't seem to get over, perhaps a legacy from the "inexpensive and built to stay that way" days.
Price is fair given the content. Here is a price comparo I did for vehicles with heated leather, DVD, NAV, S/C, AWD, and upgraded rims when available (retail price at the time of the launch of the Tribeca):
Freestyle $35k (aftermarket Nav)
Odyssey $35k (no AWD)
Pilot $36k (aftermarket DVD)
Montero $37k (aftermarket Nav)
Highlander $39k
Grand Cherokee $39k
Pathfinder $39k
Pacifica $40k
Murano $41k
Durango $41k
Sienna $42k
Explorer $42k (aftermarket Nav)
Rendezvous Ultra $42k
VW Touareg V6 $43k
MDX $44k
4Runner $44k
RX330 $45k
FX35 $47k
ML350 $47k (aftermarket DVD)
Aviator $52k
X5 3.0 $53k
Cayenne V6 $53k
SRX V6 $55k
LR3 $57k
Tribeca would run $38k, so it's close to the cheapest. I assumed you'd spend a grand for aftermarket NAV or DVD, which is cheap.
Only the Freestyle is significantly cheaper. If the Ody had AWD, price would pretty much be a wash for all the others.
Now, the thing is, a lot of that stuff is standard on the Tribeca, while others delete many of those options to bring the price down.
Tribeca's price is high, yes, but only because the content is high.
-juice
Now that Subaru's production deficit at SIA may be resolved (thanks Toyota!), I think the slow sales of the Tribeca are less of an issue. But to make up for past years, I don't think Subaru can be picky about who buys the car. A sale is a sale.
They can worry about market reach after their house is in order (hopefully soon).
-juice
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Too high for what you get (content-wise)? Nah.
But it had a VW logo. You can't have a starting price of $70 grand for a people's car.
It was not the content, the performance, nothing like that. Just the brand on the logo that killed it.
If it had an Audi badge it would have been more successful.
-juice
So then what should they have done?
I think you compare it to a whole lot of vehicles no prospective buyers will ever compare it to, including ML, X5, Cayenne, SRX, LR3, RX330, Aviator, MDX, and on. Take out the "entry-level lux" makes and the proper "luxury" makes, and just include Toyotas and Chevys (so to speak), and the list is much more daunting for the Tribeca. Indeed, they are all about the same price. But Subaru must also overcome little public awareness of the brand, a small dealer network, and weird styling. Which means it should have cost less than the others.
The Outback gained so much success as a new model by pretending to do everything the larger SUVs would do, but for a lower price. As a result, it gained lots of sales. The Tribeca must forge a brand new path for itself by doing the same thing.
Now should they have decontented it to get it to a $27K price? Yeah, maybe they should have done that instead. Even Honda offers DX and LX models. Not everyone wants an "EX".
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
In my view the Tribeca exhibits a decidedly European appearance, more French or Italian than Japanese. Interestingly though, all this Mediterranean flair is assembled in the good old USA - Indiana to be exact. Some folk furl their brow at the Tribeca's three-piece front grille arrangement, designed to appear as the wings and fuselage of an approaching plane. This concept is intended to pay homage to Subaru's aeronautic history. Other folks admire the controversial design for its artistic quality; either way credit must be given to Subaru for not cookie-cutting, although the Tribeca's side profile is somewhat similar to that of Nissan's sporty Murano thanks to a reverse raked "C" pillar, which may look dramatic but hinders rearward visibility when reversing
http://macleans.auto123.com/en/info/news/roadtest,view,Subaru.spy?artid=45361
At the New York International Auto Show I had Sam Batchelor and Chris Estrella join me to give me their insightful teenage impressions of the new shows at the premier. They were sent down to look at certain cars and bring back their first thoughts. Since they had media badges they were able to sit in the cars and give it a once over. The Subaru B9 Tribeca was not on their list, so I was surprised when they came back with a surge of glee over the car.
http://www.carlist.com/newcars/2006/ncr_371.html
Right here on Edmunds:
Puts a Premium on Style
Subaru says the Tribeca's "dose of high style" will "shake up" the SUV segment, and we agree. As are most of its competitors, the B9 is well built, well contented and comfortable, but unlike its long list of foes, it's cool-looking.
Although that look was pirated from the good folk at Alfa Romeo, it's the only and obvious reason to buy this B9 instead of its more staid Asian competition. Subaru not only knows this, it's counting on it.
So if you put a premium on style, then the 2006 Subaru B9 Tribeca, no matter how silly its name, is the midsize SUV to have. Nice going, Subaru.
From an article entitled "Subaru's First SUV Is Highly Styled and Strangely Named".
OK, so at first glance it's kind of funny looking. After a while it no longer looks funny, just different. And as Subaru continues to prove, different can be good
http://www.ebuild.com/guide/resources/product-news.asp?ID=153467&catCode=2167
The B9 Tribeca's front fascia follows from the attractive B9 Scrambler concept, a roadster introduced at the 2003 Tokyo Motor Show. Inspired by Subaru's history as an airplane manufacturer during World War II, the bold, wing-like grille is an elegant and bold design feature that will serve well as the "face" of the brand.
It won't please everyone, but I've found that the exterior styling grows on you over time. Together, the B9 Tribeca and B9 Scrambler highlight the adventurous styling direction that will give shape to Subaru's future cars and SUVs
http://www.nsnews.com/issues05/w073105/081205/automotive/081205au1.html
I can find 10 more articles if you want, one of our members tracks every review written on it.
So, the point is, your selective memory only recalls the ones you found funny and agreed with.
Bias, perhaps? :P
-juice
Fair or not, I can't help but think of it as a less attractive more expensive copy of a Murano.
Just out of curiousity, why did we think they're from the UK?
On a side note... Yes, Bob, I think you are qualified to give reliable input on design. I'd honestly like to hear your reasons for thinking the Tribeca is designed well. Which lines make sense? Which shapes evoke strong connections to positive attributes? Which parts of the object are most important? Despite your credentials, you rarely give us your view. Instead, the discussion wanders other places.
It's mid-size outside with three rows of seats inside, and a look that can only be called aggressive. Sounds great, but can it still be a Subaru?
curbside.com:
Some of the motoring press has criticized the appearance, others have been neutral but at the very least it definitely stands out. I like the look
carseek.com
The first thing you're likely to notice, however, is the styling, particularly that grille. It looks like something from an Alfa Romeo. Subaru's new chief designer came from Alfa, but he told us the grille was already set in stone when he arrived. The design of the Tribeca doesn't please everyone, but seems to grow on some people with time
I'm only about half way down Karen's site of links to reviews...
Any how, clearly there is NOT a consensus, and the opinions are NOT universal by any means. The opposite is true, it's controversial, with people in both camps.
Both of you fail to acknowledge that the other camp even exists.
-juice
On the other hand, I really hate the Subaru badge.
Posting base prices would be MUCH more realistic and informative. Not everyone wants all the electric gagets and pimp daddy wheels!
Heck, a shrewd buyer could get a Caddy SRX in the VERY low 40's. Upper 30's for a 2WD model. MUCH better driving dynamics and styling than the Subie B9 Trifecta.
Subaru could perhaps drop the equipment level, that would please me, actually. Like I said, I don't need auto climate control or a power passenger seat. I'd be happier with unpainted bumpers, though I understand why they don't offer that.
Any how, I compared apples to apples as much as possible, same level of equipment.
-juice
I think I mostly read more mainstream media sources, whose reviews are probably intentionally consistent with each other.
So OK, it's not the styling. Half of everybody finds the Tribeca "bold, interesting, not unlike an Alfa Romeo" (of course, we know how much success Alfa had in the U.S.! :-P)
Then it's the price. Safety is right up there, Sube has a good rep for reliability in general, this model has the usual Sube attributes. It's either price or slow acceleration, and I doubt it's the latter all that much.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
As to specfics on design. I've learned the hard way that talking design here (and other car sites too) is a sure receipe for an ulcer. If I were addressing others in the design field (be it car design or graphic design), that would be different, as we speak the same language. That doesn't mean we would all agree, it just means we all share a common background and understanding.
Having said that...
I never said that the Tribeca's styling (not design, but styling) is good, or even great. What I've said is that is that Subaru needed to establish a visual identity of their own, that is uniquely theirs, not unlike MB, BMW, Volvo, etc. They needed a look that's instantly recognizable as their own. The vehicle should be identified by anyone without the use of a logo or a name badge. This design direction does exactly that. That's first and foremost—it solves that problem.
I've also said, more than once, that we haven't seen how far this design direction can go. It's "a work in progress," still evolving. We've seen many variations on this to date besides the Tribeca (R1, R2, '06 Impreza, B11S, B9SC, and B5TPH concepts). They all share this family look (very important!), yet they are all different. Some are better than others, but they all show great variation, and show that this look has the potental to evolve into something attractive.
Therefore I've defended the Tribeca as a logical "next step" in implimenting this new look. Is it successful? To a degree, yes. Is it 100% succesful? No.
Most people object to the very strong front end. That's the least of my worries. I'm much more concerned about the tiny porthole rear-quarter window, the rear legroom, the small 3.0 engine powering a 4200+ pound vehicle.
You say that's not looks or styling. That's true, but that is all part of the "design." "Styling" is nothing more than surface treatment. It's what you react to when you see it—and unfortunately (or fortunately) what often sells the vehicle. For me "design" of the entire vehicle is far more important than the shape of a grille, or headlights.
If it's important to you, yes, I like the grille and the headlights, or at least I don't mind them. I don't have any problems whatsoever with those shapes conflicting with other body elements, or the way they interact with the rest of the vehicle. I think for the most part the total design works for me. Yeah, I could tweak a few items (grille texture, size, etc.), and that could improve it. Frankly I think the wheelbase should be streched from 108.1" to around 113" and give all that extra room to the third row passengers. I think that would help it visually, in that it would look less chunky (and 3rd-row passengers would also get a bigger window to look out of).
So I admit that Subaru has pushed the limits as to what a Subaru should look like, but in the long run, I believe it will pay off. It's just a matter of getting past the first five years or so, while all their models adapt to the new look. I see this as a "bump in the road" that must be crossed. Nothing more.
It would have been better if Subaru had started this process 5 years ago and gradually tried to phase it in. They didn't do that. Instead, they're aggressively trying to do this in a very short time span. That's where I see the problem—doing too much, too quickly. The public needs time to adjust to this change. Forcing it on them too quickly can be counterproductive. I think that's what we're seeing here. People are balking because they see it as being rammed down their throats. I understand that.
My concern now is what Subaru is going to do about this. Are they just going to throw in the towel, and admit failure (failure as in selling the idea, not failure in the design direction).
I could sit here an nit-pic design details (grille, headlights, etc.) if you want, but I'm not sure that will help. That's just the frosting on the cake, that stuff is easy to refine. I'm much more concerned about the big picture as to how Subaru is going to proceed from this point forward. If they toss out out the Tribeca's grille design, what does that mean in terms of the new "design language" they've been promoting? Is that going to affect all the model lines? Or just the Tribeca? I think Subaru did a pretty good job phasing the new look in on the Impreza, considering they were stuck with a very awkward body shape to work with. If they give up on this new look for the Tribeca, will they also toss it on the Impreza?
I think Subaru has to be very careful from here on. I personally think they should stick to their guns, bite the bullet of criticism for a few years, and in the long run they will come out okay. If they change horses now—in mid stream—I just don't know... That could come back to haunt them even worse, than if they were to proceed forward with what they're doing.
Bob
I will also concede that you found more than I would have expected.
But... (you knew this was coming)
Several of these confess that their first glance wasn't a happy one. Or they confess that others won't like it. Or, like with the GUTS award, they are more concerned with praising the EFFORT than the results. Or they praise the Scambler for THAT car's use of similar styling cues and say little about the Tribeca.
Certainly you are correct in saying that these are NOT negative. But with the exception of the Edmunds and Carlist articles, they're pretty weak in terms of praising the styling.
If I had to guess (yes, guessing is happening here), I'd say 40% of the reviewers don't like it. 40% say it's controversial without giving it a thumbs up or down. And maybe 20% actually like it.
And it not just art either. You can find examples of this occuring in any field you want.
Bob
The links at the top of the page go to sites with US offices and the awards are given to vehicles from North America. So, I'm thinking it's a US publication. No biggie, just wanted to know if you knew something I didn't.
I understand the difference between styling and design. You are correct to make that distinction. However, I think it's pretty obvious just about everybody is talking about styling even though they may write "design".
I'm not sure that moving too quickly/abruptly is the problem. I mean, Cadillac certainly frightened people with their Art & Science styling. Infiniti didn't ease into their new style. But in both cases, it's worked.
I agree that Subaru should develop a brand image. I agree that they should not drop the airplane facade. I just think it need an extreme make-over to work on the front of the Tribeca.
My concern with the Tribeca sheetmetal is not that it will be difficult to get right (it might be a little costly, but too much). Rather I am concerned that they thought this was going to work. (What does that mean for future variants on this theme?) Will the Tribeca ever get over this initial hurdle? (You can't make a second first impression.) And I think you may share this last one... will it stop Subaru from being daring in the future?