Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Subaru's fortunes sinking - can they turn it around?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
just when bob thinks he is getting away, vermint drawns him back in.
As to Infiniti, it took them more than a decade before they found this current (successful) look. They did a lot of searching (and failing) until they settled on this new family look.
I agree that Subaru could have refined the front end of the Tribeca a bit more, before releasing it to the public. I guess, because of my design background, I can see the potential here, whereas most people just flat out reject it without seeing where it can go. That's what I find so frustrating.
Bob
If I were on the Subaru Board of Directors and heard you give that speech, it would convince me to hold to Tribeca's current design for a few years to give folks a chance to come around.
You've reminded me how I first felt when Audi changed its look in 2002. And when Volvo changed its look in 1998. I disliked those changes but have since found them to be good. (I'm a "late adopter")
However I've never adopted to BMW's changes in the 2000 plus model years. That BMW butt has lost me.
Bob
Jalopnik was by far the harshest, but he was fired from one of his syndicated columns for his tasteless/unfair writing. :mad:
Readers tend to remember those, so perhaps those had a bigger impact on folks that were on the fence or didn't like it to begin with.
first glance wasn't a happy one
True, but it got their attention. I think that was intentional, and in this way the design succeeds.
I drove one around for a little less than a week, and I can tell you it certainly got noticed. More men than women liked it. Also, younger people liked it more than older folks. A surfer dude came up to me to ask about it, since we took it to the beach on a road trip.
I don't think a generic look, like, say, the Pontiac Torrent, that offends noone yet looks like a "Generic Crossover LX".
Remember, people often have to drive 40 miles to get to the nearest Subaru dealer.
What is going to compell them to drive that far? A bland SUV? I doubt it.
-juice
These "critiques" then become "fact," or an "absolute truth" in the minds of many readers. Once that happens, it's very difficult to reverse that momentum. This is what I see happening to Subaru. The damage has been done, and it's very hard, if not impossible to correct.
Bottom line for me is that I see the Tribeca getting much more (and much harsher) criticism than it deserves.
Bob
PF Flyer
Host
News & Views, Wagons, & Hybrid Vehicles
The Subaru Crew Chat is on tonight. The chat room opens at 8:45PM ET Hope to see YOU there! Check out the schedule
The bottom line for automotive design is if it reaches people. If you are losing customers because of a design that is perceived to be unattractive, It does not matter what Dr. Ludwig Van Egghead might think.
To answer an earlier question, this is my opinion why the Tribeca is selling at a dissapointing pace for Subaru (in order importance.)
1. The styling turns people off.
2. The small engine does not produce enough torque.
3. The interior seems tighter than the competition.
I actually think that it is priced fairly reasonably as compared to other vehicles in its class. Fix the front end styling, give it a 3.5 litre engine making 250lbs of torque, and Subaru will hit their targets.
I consider myself both a proponent and a critic of Subaru. Personally I like the way the Tribeca looks - but it took time for me to come around. It is a daring styling move for any manufacturer. I can see why Subaru tried it out on the Tribeca as it was never expected to become their volume leader. Introducing it on the Legacy/Outback would've been putting the company's future on the line.
Bob - we know that you have a design background and I at least, respect that. It qualifies you to have an opinion worth listening to. Also, thank you for taking the time to try and educate us on the differences between design and styling. Unfortunately, most of us will think "styling" whenever the word "design" is used.
That being said, it doesn't change that the lay people (including auto reviewers and consumers) aren't loving it. The fact that they aren't design experts doesn't make them wrong - it's an opinion.
And just because a group of design experts think it's "good design" doesn't mean the styling is good. Bob seems to point out that "design" really is about meeting goals. If the goals are met, it's good design.
Good design is objective. Styling is subjective.
As for the comparisons to Mozart and impressionism, I think that's a stretch. I liken that to those who look down their noses at the great unwashed if the latter can't relate to what the former considers in good taste.
Now all together: Kumbaya...
It is absolutely about meeting goals. Designers don't just sit around just trying to make things "pretty." There are clear cut objectives with every design project, be it designing a car, or designing a logo.
One of the primary goals here was to establish a new "Subaru brand face," something that absolutely is needed if the brand is to move up market, which is what they are trying to do.
Bob
Any time you undertake a radical change, be it styling or anything, you have to assume you will lose some folks. It happens.
They're also expecting that in time people will—if not grow to like the new look—at least get used to it.
It's also interesting that once you get away from the "car crowd," like everyone here, the looks issue seems to disappear. I had a Tribeca for several days last summer, as I was doing a write-up on it for another web site. I went out of my way to ask business associates and family (people who could care less about cars) about the styling, and guess what? The styling was a non-issue with them. Some liked it, some were indifferent, and nobody—I mean NOBODY—hated it.
Bob
If something is seen as ugly by most enthusiasts, it probably is.
Other than the 1962 Saab-esque snout, I am pretty neutral about it.
That's not to say the average person can't have an opinion as to what they like, or don't like. The difference being the average person is coming at it from a "gut" reaction—which has absolutely nothing to with good or bad design. It's nothing more than what they like or don't like. The a knowledgable design critic, on the other hand, comes at it (their decision) with understanding and perspective.
You may have strong feelings about the Civil War, but a Civil War Historian can add so much more depth and understanding to the subject, with knowledge based on fact and not just gut feelings.
Bob
I have liked Subaru in the past but have experienced some rather strange service at dealerships, that I'm sure does not benefit they're bottom line. I do think they make good cars and I wish them luck, but I am defiantly turned off to them .
It all sounds like Bangle defending some of his unfortunate machines
People like Bob Cumberford, Automobile magazine's "Design" Editor. He's got a good background in automotive design. I don't agree with him all the time, but I respect his opinion. Now I don't know his feelings on the Tribeca. For all I know he may hate it—and that's fine. At least I know he can back up his convictions with good reasons.
It's a shame that other mass-media auto publications don't have on staff people with credentials like Cumberford. Other than that, I would say anyone who has worked automotive design, especially those who have worked at a senior level. Here's a good place to start:
http://www.cardesignnews.com/
Bob
But Bob, please understand, acknowledge, and respect that the vast majority of us here can only go by gut reaction. We don't have design backgrounds and can only comment on the styling - positive or negative. We look at it differently than you do - we look for pretty, ugly, or inoffensive - you look at the why of the styling. You seem to forget that sometimes and IMHO are dismissing the opinions based on that gut reaction.
It's not meant as a personal attack - just what I'm sensing. Don't take it personally.
If you're seriously interested in a B9 Tribeca, you can get a cloth 7-seater (still pretty darn loaded!) for $30k-$31k. If you use the Windstar's 3rd row frequently, I think Tribeca's size will disappoint you, though. The Subie's 3rd row is really for occasional use or small kids only.
I don't dismiss those opinions. I just don't agree with them.
Bob
It's okay if Subaru tries something new, as the Impressionists did, just as long as they don't end up as starving artists. While artists and composers may work for the purpose of satisfying an inner fire, most companies can't afford that luxury. Subaru's not one person following a dream or vision, it's thousands of employees with salaries and benefits. They need to be profitable first and foremost. You can't be a car company if you can't afford to make cars.
I was shocked and actually cringed when I first saw the gaping maw in the first spy photos of the gold Tribeca. "What are they doing!?" I thought. To use Bob's terminology, the design was pleasing, but the styling... yikes! Then I saw the vehicle from other angles and my perception began to slowly change. Plus the shock wore off after seeing it enough times.
But for me, the bottom line is, well, Subaru's bottom line. I don't care if they're trend-setting with their design as long as they don't go broke because of it. Right now I'd call the new look a wash, but can't wait to see where Zapatinas will take it.
Also keep in mind that many of the shots are called by people who have little or no design experience. The design team of any car company has to answer to senior management, who often demand stupid stuff. Just because they're "designers" doesn't mean they are "allowed" to do great stuff.
On balance, however, I would take the word of someone experienced in the field of design over the word a lay person. Now that's not to say a lay person's point of view isn't valid. It is. It serves as a pulse as to where the public stands on any given issue, which is certainly worthwhile. However, it's only one factor of the equation that needs to be considered.
The role of a designer (now this is for any kind of design) first and foremost is to do the best work possible within the scope of the design objectives. Sometimes that means doing something jaring or even shocking. In Subaru's case, it was to establish a completely new look, and in doing so, that means exploring new design directions—which is exactly what they did.
Bob
Ford Freestyle LImited AWD, $30580
Freight, $700
NAV, $1995
Rear A/C, $650
Power Sunroof, $895
DVD, $995
Garage Door Opener, $150
$35,965, so I was actually a grand too low. That's still less than a Tribeca at $38.3k MSRP with the same equipment.
Yes, you certainly can get a lesser equipped Freestyle for a lot less, plus there is more haggle room. But there's also more depreciation, so TCO won't be any lower.
-juice
Dismissing opinions, hmm, sounds familiar. At a minimum both sides were doing this. Varmint talked about a consensus yet Edmunds called it "cool-looking" and "highly styled".
Perhaps Bob was reacting to these unfair and bogus comments?
spy photos of the gold Tribeca
The one that looked like a photochopped Cayenne?
The Red one was even worse, more garish. But the production model is much cleaner than either of these. Lemme see if I can dig them up....
Found one of them.
-juice
Bob
Now, if Subaru decides to sacrifice some of the profit in order to fullfill some corporate virtue, that's okay. For example, a company might make a safety feature like ABS standard instead of an upgraded stereo - even though the stereo might bring in more buyers. S'okay, that's a corporate vision I can get behind.
However, if they sacrifice more than just "some" profits for the sake of specific styling cues... I'm not on board anymore. The whole point behind designing a new facade is to improve the brand image and sell more cars.
I think a different variation of the airplane nose might work. So, I'm glad to hear that Subaru will be restyling it soon. Thanks for trying. Right idea... wrong execution... now fix it.
On that side of things, I am happier with Subaru than I am with Honda. I doubt very much they'll be as quick to improve the styling of the Ridgeline (which needs a face lift, too).
Perhaps Bob was reacting to these unfair and bogus comments?
We'd have to ask him, but I doubt it. He's made similar statements long before I wrote the consensus post.
And a consensus does not mean 100% agreement. It means the group opinion. There may be dissenters within a group, but the overall consensus would be the same.
You found a few articles which actually show a favorable opinion of the Tribeca. But you have not provided nearly as many which have trashed it. So, I'd still say the majority are not in favor of the look.
so if they 'fix' the b9, i would not consider it either given that i like the FXT type power.
i can live with something that is not beautiful but the guts of the car gotta make me happy
Ridgeline has some odd lines, the sagging bed and the tail gate that doesn't line up with it, but most of the stuff is functional so I give it a pass. Oddly, I don't even evaluate the styling, it sort of doesn't matter to me on that type of vehicle.
Maybe because I think all Crew Cabs have odd proportions?
Rather than a styling change, I'd rather see some functional upgrades on the Tribeca.
The most common complaint is the view to the rear. Either make the windows bigger or offer a rearview cam. The latter is much easier.
-juice
OTOH, in cars like the STS is helps break up the monotony of a flat/featureless front bumper.
-juice
Rather than a styling change, I'd rather see some functional upgrades on the Tribeca.
I think they need to get more test drivers. If you can't get 'em on the lot, you can't show 'em the functions. Unless they start filming commercials out the rear window, people aren't going to know about the fix.
Very true. The C6 Corvette is the same way. Add a front plate and it definitely looks like an afterthought.
They misssed an opportunity - the design was new and certainly "fresh", but they lost some potential trendsetter sales due to this issue.
-juice
Bob
My Forester has a dedicated spot, but I don't think our Legacy does. On the Miata, it's an eye sore, basically the plate sticks out of the bottom grille. I've actually customized mine to sit a little lower so it doesn't disturb the clean front bumper.
-juice
This article is very timely, from USA Today:
HOLDING ON TO SOME VALUE
Expected resale value after 5 years, as a percentage of 2006 purchase price
Kelley Blue Book
Chrysler Sebring Sedan 19%
Ford Freestar 21%
Mercury Monterey 21%
Kia Optima 21%
Jaguar X-Type 21%
Kia Rio Sedan 22%
Ford Ranger Long Bed 22%
Chevrolet Uplander 22%
Pontiac Montana 22%
Chrysler Town & Country 23%
Freestar is the 2nd worst vehicle. Wheel-and-deal because that $36k car (at list) will be worth about $7560 in 5 years. Ouch.
And that is if the "purchase price" they're talking about is full MSRP. So resale value will probably be more like $5-6 grand.
My Forester is 8 years old and the KBB was higher than that last time I checked.
That does make a Freestyle a potential bargain used, I just wouldn't get one without an extended warranty.
-juice
Yes they are. The front license plate issue is fully addressed with the new Audis.
Bob
Back to your place under the cellar stairs!!
:P
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
The Tribeca is not loved by all because it is not homogenous. The sides and back are pretty smooth and relate to each other, but the front end is like its from another vehicle. The lights are also strangely high. Other vehicles suffer from this same disjointed malady (see many GM products, etc) where the styling is not a flowing package. Compare it with designs like the previous 5er, many Sacco-era MB, even the original Impreza - all of which look like they are one vehicle. People don't react kindly to a pieced-together look. Perhaps designers should pay attention to the entire package rather than just change for the sake of change or shock.
"The lights are also strangely high."
Why is that bad? The MDX also has high-mounted lights, but pulls it off... how?
A lay person might be correct is claiming that something is unappealing, but seldom can they pinpoint why. I'm a lay person (with some training in studio arts), but I can appreciate Bob's hesitation to discuss styling because most people can't answer questions like those. Mind you , That doesn't stop me, but I know it can be challenging.
BTW, my theory is that the grille on the MDX is mounted on the same vertical level, directly between the lights, not below their level. Because of this low positioning of the grille, the lights on a Tribeca work as separate units, not as part of one facade. Like a Picasso style portrait. Each section is captured separately rather than as a whole.
My feeling about the Tribeca reminds me of 1967 when the Beatles released the "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts" album. As a big fan I was shocked at this new sound by my favorite group. But as time went on I came to realize that this was a truly excellent recording which even though my taste in music has changed, I can still enjoy. It has stood the test of time, in my opinion.
The Tribeca has had a similar impact on me. I am slowly coming around to it even though my first impression was negative.
Please continue to write your posts. I am loving them.
Bob from Long Island
One of the very basic rules you learn in Art 101 is "contrast." You use contrast in shape, size, space, color, etc. I have absolutely no problem with the front "contrasting" with the rest of the vehicle. It's good design IMO.
Okay, let me ask you this? Where is it written that designers have to design "beautiful" products? And what is "beautiful" anyway? How can you apply the aesthetic rules that of those found on an Aston Martin to that of a Mack truck? Is the Aston beautiful, whereas the Mack is ugly? I don't think so.
Speaking of trucks, I frankly find a John Deere tractor to be more beautiful than many cars. I'm serious. Same with most commercial-grade trucks.
Why? Because every element on those vehicles a "designed" to function first and foremost. Look at the UniMog. It's a great design. It looks the way it does because that's what it took to get the vehicle to be what it is. Styling may be there, but it's clearly down the list of priorities. To me that's the way it should be.
BTW, these are not dumb questions, or a "stretch" as some may say.
Bob
In a world where every successive generation of a model gets bigger, higher-powered, and potentially better-looking, Tribeca has been given plenty of room to grow on all counts! :-P
Have been doing a minor used car search this week, and have discovered it is a lot easier to find used Mazdas than used Subarus (2 manufacturers with approximately the same sales volume for at least a decade, AFAIK). If you're not looking for Outbacks, I mean. I wish Subaru would quit ignoring its smallest model. :-(
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Designers don't have to make a 'beautiful' product, but they should make one that doesn't cause poeple to look away, doesn't cause all the dogs on the block to bark as you drive by, etc. Few cars are beautiful, but many designs are very sound. It's all relative.
Form follows function in something like a Mack or a Unimog. Examples of both can easily argued to be great design for that reason. But I don't see the same existing in the Tribeca. That front end screams "I'm different for the sake of being different" IMO.
It screams SUBARU, just as BMW front ends scream BMW, and Mercede's front ends scream MERCEDES, and so on and so forth.
Bob
And the one that trumps them all is, "everything in moderation".
Color, for example, is a wonderful element. But using every color on your box of paints is not going to produce a good image. Just like banging on either end of a keyboard will produce a great deal of sonic contrast, but it ain't rock and roll.
Having that said that, I agree with Bob about the beauty of non-sexy or practical designs (tractors, 18 wheelers, etc.). My wife just bought a kitchen knife, which I find attractive. There are designs which do an excellent job of conveying the function of the object. That knife looks sharp. It might not be, but it looks like it is.
I just don't see how the design of the Tribeca conveys "family transport".
Where is it written that designers have to design "beautiful" products?
On my wife's face if we go car shopping. Seriously... cars are big ticket items. If we're shovelling out $30K+ for a vehicle, we want one that appeals to us visually.