I think sells well just because Porsche owners are devoted to Porsche, and will take its shortcomings over switching brands when they need an SUV.
Many of the Tribeca sales so far are probably based on the same rationale - Sube successfully gave its own devoted followers a step-up SUV. After the first full year of sales, I would love to see some stats on conquest sales of the Tribeca, vs sales to previous Sube owners. Hidden in there and unknowable will be the question of how many would have settled for another Outback/Forester if there had been no Tribeca, and how much would have switched brands.
I suspect that conquest sales of Tribecas will be a fairly low number, but it is nothing more than a suspicion at this point. The first full year is up in May, so it's not far away.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
They're not, really, it's just the grille insert that changed colors. The shape and design remain the same. My pic was a custom, the OE grille has not changed as much.
Cayenne has the X5 competing with it, a few others as well, maybe the Range Rover Sport now.
Of course sales are down so that is a BAD EXAMPLE to bring up!
That's a bad color to show off the changes. Basically the surround is still chrome, the horizontal slats are now black. Plus the photo quality is not the best.
For me it's very dependent on the angle. I actually kind of like the image in #1762. I don't like it from the angle on Bob's posting on the other topic. The chrome in #1763 is downright hideous.
By the way, nothing like a little Tribeca debate to get the topic energized again.
To meet the consumers half way. It is over 7 months and I have only seen 8 Tribecas on the road. There is nothing wrong with the front - Subaru is a pioneer with that front design, however they are in business and can't wait until the public warms up to the design.
Over the last ten years headlights have been slowly moving up the fenders and hoods - starting with that ugly Ford Contour.
It's unfortunate that design has to take baby steps to evolve in consumer based markets.
Not much of a change. I'd take one for free (old or new look), but wouldn't buy any of the current crossover's with my own $$$. Outback meets my needs better anyhow.
I was thinking about this yesterday. The new Mazda CX7 looks really nice... Wish Subaru could get Mazda's design mojo. Subaru really does build nice vehicles, they just can't quite get the design right. Legacy's the only one that works for me.
Subaru will change the front of the Tribeca for the 2008 model year due to the many negitve comments. In fact the Japan export of the 2007 model has been delayed until the front can be changed.
Exactly...the whole nose is fa cochta! It doesn't look as cool as the illustrations did. But ENOUGH with the nose.... Do you all think the only reason the Tribeca is selling slowly is because of the nose??? Have any of you ever rode in a Murano? Well... I drive a family member's Murano regularly and there is nothing about the Tribeca (except for the repeat lights in the side mirrors) that I can think of that would make me want it over the Murano. Sit in the back seat of the Tribeca. The bottom cushion is short,hard and low. The Murano has a plusher, deeper rear seat bottom cushion that is higher off the floor. Sit in the front passenger seat of the Tribeca. Try to stretch your legs without pushing the seat all the way back. You can't... because the firewall is further back than the driver's side. So your legs' are bent at the knees. I have the same issue with my Outback. You can relax your legs in the Murano front passenger seat. The Murano also has power adjustable pedals which have been very useful because the other driver is much shorter than me. Subaru still doesn't know what power adjustable pedals are. The Murano also has bigger map pockets that expand.... Sorry guys.... Or maybe you want to buy that Tribeca because of that oh so useful 3rd seat??? :P Subaru had more than enough time to get this right.
I could not agree more. Also, I have to see it in person, because in some pics you see very little change, the grille still appears to have a lot of brightwork, in others it looks matte black. I prefer the latter.
Mazda has the corporate look down pat. I think their biggest problem is parent Ford being afraid to invest in new products. The Tribute is long in the tooth and the MPV was already replaced in other markets. Kill it, or update it, but the US MPV is ancient and only sells with a $4000 rebate.
CX7 and Mazda5 should have replaced the Tribute and MPV. Ditch those old products.
* better AWD system, not FWD-based * 3rd row option * 9" DVD screen option * much nicer interior (IMO) * better at-the-limit handling
For the debut Ride-and-Drive, Subaru actually felt confident enough that they brought a Murano for us to drive alongside the Tribeca.
They set up an emergency avoidance manuever, where you had to swerve in one direction, then back in the other. One SoA employee got the Murano to lift a wheel, it was pretty frightening! Lots of body roll, that vehicle really needed stability control to kick in sooner.
I like the styling of the Murana, minus the chrome grille that looks like a brace-faced kid:
Paint it body color and it would be the 2nd best looking SUV in the segment, after the CX7.
You're right about the plush leather, the seats were phenomenal.
Mazda has the corporate look down pat. I think their biggest problem is parent Ford being afraid to invest in new products. The Tribute is long in the tooth and the MPV was already replaced in other markets. Kill it, or update it, but the US MPV is ancient and only sells with a $4000 rebate. CX7 and Mazda5 should have replaced the Tribute and MPV. Ditch those old products.
I sat in both a Mazda5 and an MPV in a dealer's showroom a few weeks ago while my wife was checking out a Mazda3. The 5 is a nice-looking vehicle with very comfortable seating and which makes extremely efficient use of space, but it's noticeably smaller than the MPV both inside and out. Or at least it seems that way. I really don't see the Mazda5 as a full-fledged MPV replacement. As for the CX7, isn't it going to be quite a bit more expensive than the Tribute?
But fit they wanted to keep the MPV around, get the new one out there. It's embarassing to be selling an older version in their most important market.
Reminds me of VW and the Golf V, which has yet to arrive even after 2 years or so in Europe.
CX7 is priced lower than expected, so it overlaps with the V6 Tribute quite a bit. That one I can understand, I guess, but the MPV should go or be replaced with the current model.
"There is nothing wrong with the front - Subaru is a pioneer with that front design, however they are in business and can't wait until the public warms up to the design."
Subaru doesn't make a cent on used cars. Styling which requires a warm-up period or changes after the first year is bad styling.
Advances in styling do not have to take baby steps. Witness the 300C, CTS, Audi TT, or the original RX300. Good styling will always find buyers even when the design is polarizing.
From the sound of it, don't seem Subaru's doing too bad. Here are some excerpts from today's headlines regarding 2005 bonuses to auto factory workers: ************ Toyota, Honda and Subaru aren't the only companies in the industry cutting checks. And 1,587 workers at Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd.'s Subaru plant in Indiana received a holiday gift worth $1,000. ************ Of course, Subaru's $1,000 bonus checks aren't near Toyota's $10,000 and Honda's $4,900.
I took that to be good news, as well. With Toyota taking up the slack capacity at Indiana, things should start picking up. SOA should have some much needed breathing room in the ledger very soon.
That's the 2nd time you've referred to styling changes, but all they really changed was the color of the grille, which is the same as before. Even then only the inserts changed color. That's not a restyle in my book, is it? :confuse:
In fact most of us are surprised they didn't change more, in fact the standard wheels are the same, plus they kept some of the old paint colors.
Yes, that's true. I would not call this a reskin or complete restyle. I too was expecting something more.
However, to the best of my knowledge Subaru does not change anything about the grill on a yearly basis. Not until it reaches the time for a mid-life refresh. So, even though this is a very minor change, we would not be seeing ANY change unless they recognise the current design as flawed.
I would classify this as something like what Honda was doing with the Accord's poorly styled taillights. First minor color changes only, then a full restyle at the mid-point.
Also, the fact that "most of us" were surprised by the lack of change illustrates how even the Subaru Crew believes the nose is a problem for the market... even if members like it personally.
The 300 is an evolution of the New Yorker 5th Ave/ Dodge Diplomat of the 80's and a good one!
This thread has made comments regarding the Beca grill and lamps placed above. It's this element that is unsetteling to many.
Look at these attempts that with their next redesign regressed to a plain less aggresive shape- Chevy Lumina minivan, 1st toyota minivan with mid engine, '78 4dr regal and cutlass with that horendous rear end, Ford Aerostar.
Don't be suprised if the 08 beca looks like an inflated outback.
IMO big changes in design fail more than they succeed.
Well, the kinds of changes I was hoping for was under the skin; such as a larger engine, more performance or feature-oriented stuff such as HIDs.
Yeah Subaru knows the new face on the Tribeca is not doing the job, so a faclift is in the works, probably for '08.
I've probably said this a thousand times: It's not the direction that's at fault but the execution of that direction. Subaru did a pretty decent job with the '06 Impreza, using that same design direction. So it can be pulled off.
Also for all those haters of the new look of current Subies is word that their design chief, Zapatineas, is no longer there. I've heard that from two Subaru sources. So maybe you all can now rejoice.
I think the B9 is awesome looking. I am really tired of the same old looking "cat like" headlights and swooped fronts that are easy crowd pleasers. I like vehicles with distinction and that have looks that withstand the test of time. The B9 is reminiscent of older Alph Romeos and I think very sophisticated looking. Obviously Subaru wants to sell cars, so they'll change to give the public what they want. But I think that Subaru is having a hard time making the transition from a niche' company to a mainstream company. Notice how Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc., all have to update their models every 2 years. Subaru is used model changes every 5 to 6 years so this is new territory for them. Their quirky designs were part of the appeal of Subaru and they definitely made more memorable vehicles.
I like the look too, and have said so many times here and elswhere. Is it perfect? No. But it's not nearly as bad as those here would like you to believe.
The problem Subaru is facing is very simple: The look is just too radical for many to accept. It's a well known fact most people resist (HATE!) changle, and the more radical the change, the more they resist, and the way they resist is by calling it ugly.
Really? I agree that people resist change... But, what if they really believe the car is ugly? How do you tell the difference?
Just because the look has changed.. or is different.. doesn't necessarily mean it isn't ugly to a lot of people.
I think Subaru's problem is they designed a car that most people think is ugly.. The only question is if they will do something about it... Other than trying to convince people that they are wrong about the looks, I mean..
"I think Subaru's problem is they designed a car that most people think is ugly."
Agreed. The vehicle is ugly to a lot of people, period. It's a rather politically incorrect thing to say on a Subaru forum, but I think we as Subaru owners and/or fans are being too polite about it. While some will disagree and are, of course, entitled to those opinions, a lot of people think it's ugly. And that is a serious problem for Subaru's fortunes.
Count me in as one of those who think it's ugly. Some people can rationalize and attempt to marginalize this opinion all they want -- I'm being resistant to change, I don't appreciate some of the historical Fuji influences, I'm incapable of seeing beyond old, boring designs, etc. That's just making excuses.
Yes, I've seen it in person, walked around it, and touched it. And found it to be ugly too.
Yes, I have one friend who thinks it's beautiful. I also have over a dozen family members, friends, and co-workers who think it's ugly. That's not statistically valid, sure, but I doubt if the majority of people think it's beautiful.
Truly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But ugliness hurts car sales. If the Tribeca is going to really take off, Subaru needs to significantly revise the current styling.
The outgoing Avalanche is ugly. The Ridgeline is borderline ugly. Yet both of those vehicles are (or will be) a big success.
Those vehicles succeed in spite of their looks. The reason being they both have a number of "must-have" features. Those must-have features more than make up for controversial looks.
If the Tribeca is going to have provacative/controversal looks, it had better have some must-have (and unique) features of its own—and it doesn't. That's the problem as I see it.
If the Tribeca had a 300+ horsepower engine, I bet the styling would be forgiven in a lot more people's minds. If the Tribeca had a 3rd-row seat that could comfortably fit normal-sized adults, it might actually look beautiful in the eyes of many more people. I could go on, but you get the picture.
SOA might argue that it has class-leading handling. Well that's all well and good, but first you have get people into the driver's seat to discover that. The must-have features need to be instantly recognizable to customers. The 2-way tailgate and bed trunk of the Ridgeline are perfect examples of that. Subaru needs those kind of easy to grasp features. Features in which excellence is instantly understood. That the Tribeca lacks.
So styling is not the sole issue as to whether a vehicle succeeds. It's the total recipe that counts. Styling is just one part of the success formula.
... but first you have get people into the driver's seat to discover that...
You can't get people into the driver's seat if a lot of them think the vehicle is ugly. So what if it has a more useable third row? So what if it has, say, a 275hp/265lbs torque engine?
The Tribeca has some strong assets: an excellent AWD system, "adequate" power (for most family buyers), a great-looking interior, good handling, and good comfort/convenience features. Once the IIHS tests come in, it'll likely have excellent crash-test scores across the board.
Look at all the (non-hybrid) Highlander buyers. The Highlander's third row is also tiny, its power is also just adequate in V6 form, etc. The Subaru's interior is better, and so is its AWD system. The Highlander's styling is bland IMHO, but it doesn't provoke the violent reactions that the Tribeca does.
So sure, styling isn't the sole criteria. But in the Tribeca's case, it's a major impediment.
Invoking a pickup like the Ridgeline isn't a valid comparison. Besides it being in a separate class, I'm not sure if as many people think it's ugly, compared to as many who think the Tribeca is ugly. Plus the Ridgeline has not been as big a success as advertised. Honda's already cut back production on it, and there are reports of lots of Ridgelines sitting on dealers' lots. I've noticed that's true in the two Honda dealerships I've driven by in the last few months.
You want ugly? I don't think any autowriter has referred to a vehicle as British genitalia:
Invoking a pickup like the Ridgeline isn't a valid comparison.
It absolutely is valid. The point I was making is that if a vehicle has compelling, never-before seen-but very-useful features, it can make an otherwise unattractive vehicle very successful in the marketplace.
You call it ugly. I and 20K+ owners call it distinctive.
As to your automotive writer's reference... It just proves my point that most auto journalists (and I hesitate to call this a "journalist") don't know good design.
You call it ugly. I and 20K+ owners call it distinctive.
But look at what you said in a previous post:
Yeah Subaru knows the new face on the Tribeca is not doing the job, so a faclift is in the works, probably for '08.
Therefore, there must be a lot of non-owners who think it's ugly.
I never said that everyone thinks the Tribeca is ugly. The main question is whether there's enough of them to make the vehicle a stronger success and help turn Subaru's fortunes around.
... don't know good design.
Please see my original post. A lot of people do indeed recognize good design when they see it. They also recognize "ugly" pretty quickly too.
I stand by what I say, and have been saying ever since the vehicle debuted. The looks are distinctive, not ugly.
"Majority rules," or popularity contests, are not measures of good or bad. They only reflect the tastes of the time. I mentioned many posts back that the public demanded fins and tons of chrome back in the 1950s and 1960s. Should we assume that because the public liked these cars, that they were good designs?
The Tribeca sales this year pushed Subaru to a record year. Without the Tribeca, their sales would have been down considerably.
Gee, I've been saying that the Tribeca's ugly since it debuted. So I'm standing by what I say too.
The Tribeca sales this year pushed Subaru to a record year. Without the Tribeca, their sales would have been down considerably.
Not surprising since Subaru never offered an SUV before. Sales had nowhere to go but up. The real question is what will Tribeca sales do as the "newness" of a new Subaru SUV and the new model wear off.
I do agree that Subaru needs to add a higher power option. Adding a few features/luxuries wouldn't hurt.
But they also need to significantly restyle the vehicle to appeal to a broader audience.
Haven't we been over this "ugly" thing about 500 times now? I generally agree with Bob that it's a sophisticated design, but it took a little getting used to for me. After seeing it many times now, I think it's kinda handsome and *gasp* elegant, and hope to own one in a year or two. Maybe that's because I have seen it often enough that it doesn't look weird anymore. But clearly, as we've seen in the forums ever since Tribeca debuted, folks can't be persuaded or reasoned with to find something attractive or unattractive. Some folks like it right off the bat, some may find it attractive over time... others never will... we're all different! There should be no argument over whether Tribeca is attractive or not, but over whether enough folks think it's attractive for Subaru to make their goals.
As for those who must find human anatomy to compare the grille with... I don't know about you, but I like those parts. Is this an "organic" design, then? :P
On another note: Here's a nice, feel-good story regarding reduced defects at SIA. That's the way to keep customers and grow your brand. Someone at the newspaper must be using a Microsoft spellchecker, though; about halfway through, it refers to a Subaru model called the "Outlook". Oops
Jeff, I agree. We've been arguing this ugly vs. distinctive thing it seems like forever. Can we all agree that one man's passion is another man's poison? We can continue to argue this point till the cows come home and never agree. It reminds me of the old "TASTES GREAT! vs. "LESS FILLING!" beer argument commercials of a few years back. Kinda silly isn't it?
Raybear is a Subie salesman who posts here. He, probably more than anyone here, can speak with some degree of authority as to whether the styling is helping or hurting sales, at least in his district.
The fact that ugly vs. distinctive has been argued for "like forever" is exactly the problem.
I never said that some people didn't find the vehicle "not ugly." If you would go back to my original post on this subject, it's agreement with kyfdx's point that a lot of people do find it ugly. That it's not necessarily a matter of not being able to see a distinctive design, or that people resist change. Some people just find it plain ugly.
If you want to go with "tastes great, less filling," be prepared to have people disagree with the distintive styling-based-on-good-design-and-change argument.
Agreed. The vehicle is ugly to a lot of people, period. It's a rather politically incorrect thing to say on a Subaru forum, but I think we as Subaru owners and/or fans are being too polite about it. While some will disagree and are, of course, entitled to those opinions, a lot of people think it's ugly. And that is a serious problem for Subaru's fortunes.
Comments
Many of the Tribeca sales so far are probably based on the same rationale - Sube successfully gave its own devoted followers a step-up SUV. After the first full year of sales, I would love to see some stats on conquest sales of the Tribeca, vs sales to previous Sube owners. Hidden in there and unknowable will be the question of how many would have settled for another Outback/Forester if there had been no Tribeca, and how much would have switched brands.
I suspect that conquest sales of Tribecas will be a fairly low number, but it is nothing more than a suspicion at this point. The first full year is up in May, so it's not far away.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Cayenne has the X5 competing with it, a few others as well, maybe the Range Rover Sport now.
Of course sales are down so that is a BAD EXAMPLE to bring up!
-juice
-juice
Do it in all black or gunmetal and I might like it.
Seriously, if Subaru *gave* me a Tribeca with that grille, I would...well, I would buy the other grille and swap it out! LOL
-juice
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
-juice
rsholland, "Subaru B9 Tribeca (B9X)" #6904, 9 Feb 2006 11:10 am
By the way, nothing like a little Tribeca debate to get the topic energized again.
To meet the consumers half way. It is over 7 months and I have only seen 8 Tribecas on the road. There is nothing wrong with the front - Subaru is a pioneer with that front design, however they are in business and can't wait until the public warms up to the design.
Over the last ten years headlights have been slowly moving up the fenders and hoods - starting with that ugly Ford Contour.
It's unfortunate that design has to take baby steps to evolve in consumer based markets.
Charlie
I was thinking about this yesterday. The new Mazda CX7 looks really nice... Wish Subaru could get Mazda's design mojo. Subaru really does build nice vehicles, they just can't quite get the design right. Legacy's the only one that works for me.
It is the placement of the headlights.. drop them down level with the grill... and.. all is forgiven...
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
But ENOUGH with the nose.... Do you all think the only reason the Tribeca is selling slowly is because of the nose??? Have any of you ever rode in a Murano? Well... I drive a family member's Murano regularly and there is nothing about the Tribeca (except for the repeat lights in the side mirrors) that I can think of that would make me want it over the Murano.
Sit in the back seat of the Tribeca. The bottom cushion is short,hard and low. The Murano has a plusher, deeper rear seat bottom cushion that is higher off the floor.
Sit in the front passenger seat of the Tribeca. Try to stretch your legs without pushing the seat all the way back. You can't... because the firewall is further back than the driver's side. So your legs' are bent at the knees. I have the same issue with my Outback. You can relax your legs in the Murano front passenger seat.
The Murano also has power adjustable pedals which have been very useful because the other driver is much shorter than me. Subaru still doesn't know what power adjustable pedals are.
The Murano also has bigger map pockets that expand....
Sorry guys....
Or maybe you want to buy that Tribeca because of that oh so useful 3rd seat??? :P
Subaru had more than enough time to get this right.
I could not agree more. Also, I have to see it in person, because in some pics you see very little change, the grille still appears to have a lot of brightwork, in others it looks matte black. I prefer the latter.
Mazda has the corporate look down pat. I think their biggest problem is parent Ford being afraid to invest in new products. The Tribute is long in the tooth and the MPV was already replaced in other markets. Kill it, or update it, but the US MPV is ancient and only sells with a $4000 rebate.
CX7 and Mazda5 should have replaced the Tribute and MPV. Ditch those old products.
deebryan: what's your source?
-juice
http://blogs.edmunds.com/.ee8f3e8
Bob
* better AWD system, not FWD-based
* 3rd row option
* 9" DVD screen option
* much nicer interior (IMO)
* better at-the-limit handling
For the debut Ride-and-Drive, Subaru actually felt confident enough that they brought a Murano for us to drive alongside the Tribeca.
They set up an emergency avoidance manuever, where you had to swerve in one direction, then back in the other. One SoA employee got the Murano to lift a wheel, it was pretty frightening! Lots of body roll, that vehicle really needed stability control to kick in sooner.
I like the styling of the Murana, minus the chrome grille that looks like a brace-faced kid:
Paint it body color and it would be the 2nd best looking SUV in the segment, after the CX7.
You're right about the plush leather, the seats were phenomenal.
-juice
Let's hope Subaru ditches the exact same look for whatever production vehicle the B5-TPH evolves into...
Doug
All I concluded from that was that they would likely consider a 3 door version of the next WRX.
Even the hybrid drivetrains is unlikely to see production given it was designed before the Toyota partnership.
-juice
CX7 and Mazda5 should have replaced the Tribute and MPV. Ditch those old products.
I sat in both a Mazda5 and an MPV in a dealer's showroom a few weeks ago while my wife was checking out a Mazda3. The 5 is a nice-looking vehicle with very comfortable seating and which makes extremely efficient use of space, but it's noticeably smaller than the MPV both inside and out. Or at least it seems that way. I really don't see the Mazda5 as a full-fledged MPV replacement.
As for the CX7, isn't it going to be quite a bit more expensive than the Tribute?
Reminds me of VW and the Golf V, which has yet to arrive even after 2 years or so in Europe.
CX7 is priced lower than expected, so it overlaps with the V6 Tribute quite a bit. That one I can understand, I guess, but the MPV should go or be replaced with the current model.
-juice
Subaru doesn't make a cent on used cars. Styling which requires a warm-up period or changes after the first year is bad styling.
Advances in styling do not have to take baby steps. Witness the 300C, CTS, Audi TT, or the original RX300. Good styling will always find buyers even when the design is polarizing.
************
Toyota, Honda and Subaru aren't the only companies in the industry cutting checks.
And 1,587 workers at Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd.'s Subaru plant in Indiana received a holiday gift worth $1,000.
************
Of course, Subaru's $1,000 bonus checks aren't near Toyota's $10,000 and Honda's $4,900.
:shades:
Mazda has already said the CX7 will replace the MPV. The new MPV will NOT be imported to North America.
In fact most of us are surprised they didn't change more, in fact the standard wheels are the same, plus they kept some of the old paint colors.
-juice
Bob
However, to the best of my knowledge Subaru does not change anything about the grill on a yearly basis. Not until it reaches the time for a mid-life refresh. So, even though this is a very minor change, we would not be seeing ANY change unless they recognise the current design as flawed.
I would classify this as something like what Honda was doing with the Accord's poorly styled taillights. First minor color changes only, then a full restyle at the mid-point.
Also, the fact that "most of us" were surprised by the lack of change illustrates how even the Subaru Crew believes the nose is a problem for the market... even if members like it personally.
The 300 is an evolution of the New Yorker 5th Ave/ Dodge Diplomat of the 80's and a good one!
This thread has made comments regarding the Beca grill and lamps placed above. It's this element that is unsetteling to many.
Look at these attempts that with their next redesign regressed to a plain less aggresive shape- Chevy Lumina minivan, 1st toyota minivan with mid engine, '78 4dr regal and cutlass with that horendous rear end, Ford Aerostar.
Don't be suprised if the 08 beca looks like an inflated outback.
IMO big changes in design fail more than they succeed.
Charlie
Yeah Subaru knows the new face on the Tribeca is not doing the job, so a faclift is in the works, probably for '08.
I've probably said this a thousand times: It's not the direction that's at fault but the execution of that direction. Subaru did a pretty decent job with the '06 Impreza, using that same design direction. So it can be pulled off.
Also for all those haters of the new look of current Subies is word that their design chief, Zapatineas, is no longer there. I've heard that from two Subaru sources. So maybe you all can now rejoice.
Bob
Could you elaborate on that?
One word: "EDSEL" - has the auto industry learned NOTHING?
That said, I kinda like the front - but then, I like the Edsel too! Shows what I know! :confuse:
The problem Subaru is facing is very simple: The look is just too radical for many to accept. It's a well known fact most people resist (HATE!) changle, and the more radical the change, the more they resist, and the way they resist is by calling it ugly.
Bob
the 300 is besically a three box design. Almost vertical grill and headlamps. Long hoodline, squared off greenhouse and a squared off trunk.
It's a classic american design.
Just because the look has changed.. or is different.. doesn't necessarily mean it isn't ugly to a lot of people.
I think Subaru's problem is they designed a car that most people think is ugly.. The only question is if they will do something about it... Other than trying to convince people that they are wrong about the looks, I mean..
regards,
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Agreed. The vehicle is ugly to a lot of people, period. It's a rather politically incorrect thing to say on a Subaru forum, but I think we as Subaru owners and/or fans are being too polite about it. While some will disagree and are, of course, entitled to those opinions, a lot of people think it's ugly. And that is a serious problem for Subaru's fortunes.
Count me in as one of those who think it's ugly. Some people can rationalize and attempt to marginalize this opinion all they want -- I'm being resistant to change, I don't appreciate some of the historical Fuji influences, I'm incapable of seeing beyond old, boring designs, etc. That's just making excuses.
Yes, I've seen it in person, walked around it, and touched it. And found it to be ugly too.
Yes, I have one friend who thinks it's beautiful. I also have over a dozen family members, friends, and co-workers who think it's ugly. That's not statistically valid, sure, but I doubt if the majority of people think it's beautiful.
Truly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But ugliness hurts car sales. If the Tribeca is going to really take off, Subaru needs to significantly revise the current styling.
Those vehicles succeed in spite of their looks. The reason being they both have a number of "must-have" features. Those must-have features more than make up for controversial looks.
If the Tribeca is going to have provacative/controversal looks, it had better have some must-have (and unique) features of its own—and it doesn't. That's the problem as I see it.
If the Tribeca had a 300+ horsepower engine, I bet the styling would be forgiven in a lot more people's minds. If the Tribeca had a 3rd-row seat that could comfortably fit normal-sized adults, it might actually look beautiful in the eyes of many more people. I could go on, but you get the picture.
SOA might argue that it has class-leading handling. Well that's all well and good, but first you have get people into the driver's seat to discover that. The must-have features need to be instantly recognizable to customers. The 2-way tailgate and bed trunk of the Ridgeline are perfect examples of that. Subaru needs those kind of easy to grasp features. Features in which excellence is instantly understood. That the Tribeca lacks.
So styling is not the sole issue as to whether a vehicle succeeds. It's the total recipe that counts. Styling is just one part of the success formula.
Bob
You can't get people into the driver's seat if a lot of them think the vehicle is ugly. So what if it has a more useable third row? So what if it has, say, a 275hp/265lbs torque engine?
The Tribeca has some strong assets: an excellent AWD system, "adequate" power (for most family buyers), a great-looking interior, good handling, and good comfort/convenience features. Once the IIHS tests come in, it'll likely have excellent crash-test scores across the board.
Look at all the (non-hybrid) Highlander buyers. The Highlander's third row is also tiny, its power is also just adequate in V6 form, etc. The Subaru's interior is better, and so is its AWD system. The Highlander's styling is bland IMHO, but it doesn't provoke the violent reactions that the Tribeca does.
So sure, styling isn't the sole criteria. But in the Tribeca's case, it's a major impediment.
Invoking a pickup like the Ridgeline isn't a valid comparison. Besides it being in a separate class, I'm not sure if as many people think it's ugly, compared to as many who think the Tribeca is ugly. Plus the Ridgeline has not been as big a success as advertised. Honda's already cut back production on it, and there are reports of lots of Ridgelines sitting on dealers' lots. I've noticed that's true in the two Honda dealerships I've driven by in the last few months.
You want ugly? I don't think any autowriter has referred to a vehicle as British genitalia:
http://www.autospies.com/article/index.asp?articleId=6558&categoryId=21
It absolutely is valid. The point I was making is that if a vehicle has compelling, never-before seen-but very-useful features, it can make an otherwise unattractive vehicle very successful in the marketplace.
You call it ugly. I and 20K+ owners call it distinctive.
As to your automotive writer's reference... It just proves my point that most auto journalists (and I hesitate to call this a "journalist") don't know good design.
Bob
But look at what you said in a previous post:
Yeah Subaru knows the new face on the Tribeca is not doing the job, so a faclift is in the works, probably for '08.
Therefore, there must be a lot of non-owners who think it's ugly.
I never said that everyone thinks the Tribeca is ugly. The main question is whether there's enough of them to make the vehicle a stronger success and help turn Subaru's fortunes around.
... don't know good design.
Please see my original post. A lot of people do indeed recognize good design when they see it. They also recognize "ugly" pretty quickly too.
"Majority rules," or popularity contests, are not measures of good or bad. They only reflect the tastes of the time. I mentioned many posts back that the public demanded fins and tons of chrome back in the 1950s and 1960s. Should we assume that because the public liked these cars, that they were good designs?
The Tribeca sales this year pushed Subaru to a record year. Without the Tribeca, their sales would have been down considerably.
Bob
The Tribeca sales this year pushed Subaru to a record year. Without the Tribeca, their sales would have been down considerably.
Not surprising since Subaru never offered an SUV before. Sales had nowhere to go but up. The real question is what will Tribeca sales do as the "newness" of a new Subaru SUV and the new model wear off.
I do agree that Subaru needs to add a higher power option. Adding a few features/luxuries wouldn't hurt.
But they also need to significantly restyle the vehicle to appeal to a broader audience.
As for those who must find human anatomy to compare the grille with... I don't know about you, but I like those parts.
On another note: Here's a nice, feel-good story regarding reduced defects at SIA. That's the way to keep customers and grow your brand. Someone at the newspaper must be using a Microsoft spellchecker, though; about halfway through, it refers to a Subaru model called the "Outlook". Oops
http://www.jconline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060212/BUSINESS/602120328
FWIW:
raybear, "Subaru Crew - Future Models II" #17720, 11 Feb 2006 5:51 pm
Raybear is a Subie salesman who posts here. He, probably more than anyone here, can speak with some degree of authority as to whether the styling is helping or hurting sales, at least in his district.
Bob
I never said that some people didn't find the vehicle "not ugly." If you would go back to my original post on this subject, it's agreement with kyfdx's point that a lot of people do find it ugly. That it's not necessarily a matter of not being able to see a distinctive design, or that people resist change. Some people just find it plain ugly.
If you want to go with "tastes great, less filling," be prepared to have people disagree with the distintive styling-based-on-good-design-and-change argument.
Agreed. The vehicle is ugly to a lot of people, period. It's a rather politically incorrect thing to say on a Subaru forum, but I think we as Subaru owners and/or fans are being too polite about it. While some will disagree and are, of course, entitled to those opinions, a lot of people think it's ugly. And that is a serious problem for Subaru's fortunes.
Bob
Something tells me this is not over...again....
Karl