Are you a current or recent car shopper who bought an EV and then installed solar – or who had solar already, making the decision to go electric easier?
OR
Are you a recent EV buyer (past 3 months) as a result of manufacturer incentives and dealer discounts on these vehicles, including year-end deals? Were you convinced to buy an EV after finding a good end-of-year deal, or due to uncertainty around which EVs will no longer qualify for full/partial EV tax credits in 2024? A national business reporter is interested in speaking with you. Please reach out to [email protected] by 12/15 if interested in sharing your story.
OR
Are you a recent EV buyer (past 3 months) as a result of manufacturer incentives and dealer discounts on these vehicles, including year-end deals? Were you convinced to buy an EV after finding a good end-of-year deal, or due to uncertainty around which EVs will no longer qualify for full/partial EV tax credits in 2024? A national business reporter is interested in speaking with you. Please reach out to [email protected] by 12/15 if interested in sharing your story.
Comments
Here in the US, most models carry a price advantage over similar competitors. That's not the case at all in Canada. For whatever reason buyers there are less price sensitive.
Another example - since 2002 the WRX came with heated seats in Canada. More content is fairly common.
-mike
The Mazda CX9 offers them but I priced one with NAV and heated leather and it was $36,561 (no-haggle price). The same dealers had the Tribeca LTD w/NAV for $31,761.
That's about $5 grand more; I'm sure you could buy the HID parts for less than half that amount.
June.
So we get the Xenon for a $8000. Nice deal!
I'm fine with the projector beams on there now. No problems at all with the lighting on the road trip I took with the loaner. Roads on the way to the Eastern Shore aren't particularly well lit, either.
-mike
http://www.subaru.com/sub/misc/2008/autoshow/ny0311/tribeca/index.html
At least the mileage is supposedly better, so your practical range improves.
Still, it should have at least a 20 gallon capacity.
-mike
The current one is rated for 18mpg city, but fact is unless you use a really light foot you'll do worse than that, at least in congested DC traffic. At one point the on-board computer said I was getting 13mpg (and I still average a not-bad 20.4mpg for the week).
So a low of 13 mpg times 16.9 gallons is just 219.7 miles, and that's all the way to empty. The low fuel light goes on with 2.3 gallons left, so your useful range in dense city traffic is just 189.8 miles.
Even I'd be filling up more than once a week.
I hate that about my Miata. Tiny fuel tank. 10.9 gallons IIRC. But use 8 of them and it reads "E", and I'm always worried about running out. It actually happened once.
Also, I like to fill up at the beach, where prices are a lot lower. So it would be nice to have a gas tank big enough to make the 224-mile round trip to the beach, and still get me around for 5 weekdays.
Realistically that means I want a range of about 350-400 miles. I'll have to average nearly 24mpg to do that with a Tribeca, in other words - doubtful.
-mike
I rarely go over 200 miles around town and 300 on the highway. It just needs to be filled a little too often. I have tought of upgrading to the larger tank (19.8) but I don't know if it will fit. An additional 3 gallons makes a big difference.
I had a v8 jeep before the RX and it had a slighly larger tank and I never felt it was too small. I could go through about 17 gallons before it needed to be refilled. All these suvs seem to get around mid teens around town if your lucky.
-mike
-mike
-mike
Just because gas stations are abundant doesn't mean I want to stop more frequently. Most of the time the kids are sleeping, and if I stop they some times wake up.
Plus, I just would like to stop less often for gas, period. I'm not talking about one long trip, I mean having to stop 37 times per year instead of 50 times per year (the difference between 300 vs. 400 mile range).
-mike
When it was just me, it didn't matter. I'll stop anywhere, any time. Mid night in a bad neighborhood? No problem, just tip the crack user that helps fill her up.
With the kids, though, I hate stopping.
I'll let you do the math on that bill.
-mike
The major points that I take from that discussion are:
1) Underpowered engine
2) Front end styling
3) Lack of legroom for 3rd row seats
4) Poor rear visibility
5) Small gas tank
I see they addressed #4 in 2007 model, and #1 and #2 in 2008 model. Not addressed are #5 and #3.
Are there other major issues not addressed?
For 3 they at least made access to the 3rd row easier. Also, for the 5 passenger models, they removed that stopper that didn't let the seat go back all the way, which prevents crushing feet on the 5+2 model. The 5 seater never needed it.
Saw a preview on Car & Driver yesterday (it's gone - embargo?) and they STILL are saying the 5+2 has less room in the 2nd row than the 5 seater does, so they still don't get it! :mad:
They did say if you close your eyes you'd believe you were in a BMW X5 (sweet!) and loved the engine and handling. :shades:
If you want to play, then you must pay.... :P
-mike
Wow, high torque at low RPMs is certainly welcome for Tribeca, now say you can compare to X5 is going a bit too far.
But if it is real, sign me up. I already starting to build strategy to convince my wife to trade our 2006 Outback for 2008 Tribeca when it goes out of warranty:-). We test drove the Tribeca in 2005, but we hit a few deal breakers: poor rear visibility, no memory seats, premium gas.
Funny thing is I don't like the X5 that much. I found it a bit too heavy and cumbersome. I much, much prefer the 5 series wagon.
I drove the previous generation of both, however. Back then the X5 didn't offer a 3rd row, so picking the wagon was a no-brainer, as it also has a bigger cargo floor. The new X5 offers a 3rd row and would meet my needs better.
Bob
However, a 5er wagon is quite roomy. It felt roomier inside than the X5.
I wouldn't say that about the Outback. It's not as wide, the 2nd row on the Tribeca is a lot wider and it feels roomier, plus it offers a 3rd row.
Hence the compromise is worth it.
With the old X5, it wasn't. You didn't really get anything besides a high view point.
-mike
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jXumIBFJMs
Bob
Dave gained a little weight, he must've been working hard and not getting out much!
Nice torque curve! It's making about 40 to 50 lb-ft more than before all the way up to 5000 rpm or so, basically where you use it.
All gears except 4th are taller. I'm happy that 5th is taller, to get the revs down for my long trips. :shades:
Less hunting for the trans.
EPA numbers the same, so it would have been 18/23 using the old measures.
No big surprises, but I loved seeing that torque curve tower over the old one. With less octane, no less.
-mike
Heck, I'll email him and ask him for a copy of those slides.
By today's standards, a mid-8's 0-60 time is nothing to trumpet, but it sure was fast enough for me.
Granted- as has been said, it's not the power that the 3.0L is lacking, it's the low end grunt and slow shifting. I'll try not to covet the new 3.6L engine. And- when gas prices are over $4/gal. The extra $0.20 for supreme will seem like less of a hit as when it was $2/gal.
- my sour grapes-