Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Subaru B9 Tribeca (B9X)

1…152153155157158…163

Comments

  • pschreckpschreck Member Posts: 524
    Sure you can, I do it all the time. Just hold the button (on the dash) down.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The 08 is supposed to get a 3.6l with more torque and better efficiency, it may be worth waiting for. An excerpt from the article:

    Tribeca now gets a 3.6-liter motor. At 254 hp, it makes only marginally more power (the old one developed 245) but much more torque: 247 lb-ft (up from 215). At the same time, the new motor returns 10 percent better fuel economy and runs on regular fuel instead of premium.

    I'm waiting. :shades:
  • cluelesspacluelesspa Member Posts: 648
    thanks! I just did not hold the button for next FILE down long enough to get it to FF Or RW ... cool!

    ok now anyone help with the stupid front reading lights going out after about 5 mins with the doors STILL Open?
  • robr2robr2 Member Posts: 8,805
    ok now anyone help with the stupid front reading lights going out after about 5 mins with the doors STILL Open?

    It's probably considered a feature - it turns of the lights to prevent battery drain in case you leave your doors open. My Odyssey does it on the rear hatch dome and my VW does it as well.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Reading lights, they probably use the same supplier of electrical components as Nissan (I know the door/window switches are the same) and my Armada does the same thing, the reading lights will turn off after 5 min even with the door open.

    -mike
  • nickelnickel Member Posts: 147
    "The overall effect reminds one of a Chrysler Pacifica: not special, but handsome."
    The Pacifica is not a handsome car. Nor 254 hp is enough to beat the competition. God should be willing to keep protecting Subaru.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    First off, what matters is the torque, and 247 lb-ft is very class competitive. It may actually be close to best in class for engines designed for regular octane fuel.

    The current model already gets the best mileage of any 3-row crossover that I can think of, but pile on a 10% improvement expected for the new 3.6l model, and it'll take the fuel efficiency crown also.

    FHI engineers, not God, will protect Subaru with improvements like these.

    If you disagree, I challenge you to name a competitor that offers more torque and/or better fuel efficiency. :lemon:
  • morey000morey000 Member Posts: 384
    Sorry for this, as I'm a lover of my 'beca,
    but the Rav4 puts out 269hp and 246ftlbs and is rated at 21/28mpg for it's 3.5l engine. Engine is also used in the Lexus RX350 where it claims 270hp and 251ft-lbs for 17/22mpg.
    Heck- even GMC's Acacia has got a 3.6L with 275hp and 251ft-lbs and is rated at 17/24mpg for a much larger vehicle.
  • nickelnickel Member Posts: 147
    'Cause it's more than 38K for a fully loaded. Let's see.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Heard some arcadias are priced well over 40k!!!

    -mike
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    The Toyota version of the 3.5l engine runs on 87 octane; the Lexus version requires premium fuel. The Becca's torque is slightly higher than the Toyota with the same 87 octane.

    I don't know the fuel requirement for the GM engine; what is it?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I said "best in class" and the RAV4 is at least one category below the Tribeca, especially in terms of interior refinement. It's also a bit smaller.

    Also - the EPA estimates you quote for the RAV4 are for the FWD model. And even the AWD model achieves slightly lower numbers by using part-time AWD, i.e. pure FWD in the EPA tests, which don't simulate slippery surfaces.

    The RX350 is also smaller than the Tribeca, I drove one at the Taste of Lexus and it's not as wide as the Tribeca's interior. Not only does it require premium fuel, but also more of it. And this is before we factor Subaru's 10% improvement.

    I drove an Outlook, and I'll hand it to GM, they did a good job with that one. If Subaru indeed gets that 10% improvement in fuel economy, it'll still be more efficient, but GM deserves a pat on the back for this one.

    Issues I had with the Outlook were not related to the engine or fuel efficienty, but rather visibility with the very wide pillars, and 2nd row seat comfort, since the cushions are just too close to the floor.

    If Subaru's new 3.6l really makes 247lb-ft and a 10% improvement in fuel economy, I'll say it again - they will have a best-in-class balance of fuel efficiency and torque.

    -juice
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    If Subaru's new 3.6l really makes 247lb-ft and a 10% improvement in fuel economy, I'll say it again - they will have a best-in-class balance of fuel efficiency and torque
    juice,
    Wouldn't that be nice in the Outback! :)
    Dave
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    With less weight, oh yeah... :shades:
  • bman33bman33 Member Posts: 85
    Please tell me they will increase horsepower more than 9! A 20% increase in displacement only nets 9 HP? Sorry, but if this is the case, I'm going to have to look elsewhere.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Ah well you know how it goes.... You need to look at the whole picture my friend.

    For instance what does the torque band look like? What does the HP band look like.

    One might look at the 6.6L Duramax Turbo Diesel and say "wow only 375hp" However the curve is likely throughout the RPM range and the torque is 660lbs also throughout most of the RPM range.

    Same goes for the 8.2L engines in my boat, 415hp from about 1500 up to 5000 RPMs....

    -mike
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    As Mike stated, the 3.6 engine will a lot more torque—and from down low, where it's needed.

    http://www.caranddriver.com/autoshows/12685/2008-subaru-tribeca.html

    Bob
  • lkconferlkconfer Member Posts: 10
    :confuse: From the Subaru Japan website ....

    http://www.subaru.co.jp/square/gallery/kabegami/traviq/index.html

    The Traviq is currently being sold in Japan. Makes sense that the tooling is already there and available for a quick production overhaul in the Indiana plant. The horizontal bar grill and squared off headlights seem to go along with what has already been reported. If this is similar to the 2008 facelift, it only makes me appreciate my 2006 even more. This is reallllly booooorrrring!
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    I like the Traviq look!

    -mike
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Subaru discontinued the Traviq some time ago. It was nothing more than an Opel minivan.

    Bob
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    ah ha, I always liked the holden/opel stuff.

    -mike
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    They probably used a lower compression ratio, but that's what allows them to recommend 87 octane fuel for the new engine.

    So you get "only" 9 more peak horsepower, but 13% more peak torque using 10% less fuel that happens to cost about 10% less than the premium fuel that is recommended for the current model.

    Seems like more than a fair trade off to me.

    Looks at the Acura MDX vs. the Honda Pilot. On the Honda you can use regular fuel. For Acura, they tune the 3.5l a bit more but then it requires premium fuel.

    Not sure if you recall, but the premium fuel thing was a big issue for Subaru buyers. Perhaps because Subaru is not a luxury brand, so shoppers were surprised when they saw that.

    I'll happily trade off the extra 10hp or so they could have achieved for the fuel savings.

    -juice

    PS There's another way to look at it. If you look at the Nissan Armada and Infiniti QX56, the Nissan makes 10 fewer horses. On a dynomometer, owners discovered that there really was no difference between the engines, just the fuel used. On regular fuel, the Infiniti basically lost those 10 extra horses. Similarly, the Tribeca can run on 87 octane but it also probably loses a few horses. So using the same fuel as the new 3.6l Tribeca engine, the actual HP gain is very likely more than just 9. It's probably closer to a 20hp gain using the same type of fuel.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The Traviq is a GM clone, and since that deal is off the model was discontinued.

    It was basically an Opel Zafira minivan (european design) with a slightly bigger displacement engine.

    The Chevy Forester (sold only in India) was also discontinued when GM sold their shares to Toyota.

    What joint venture is next? Probably a minicompact that Toyota will supply to Subaru for Europe.

    -juice
  • bman33bman33 Member Posts: 85
    Thanks for the link Bob. I'm disappointed because I am a big Subaru fan and my wife and I own a 2006 Tribeca. I was looking forward to trading in the 2006 if Fuji answered the call on the motor department. Unfortunately, 256 HP (per C&D article) and 247 ft./lbs are not enough for a 4155 lb cross-over.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Are you kidding?

    I thought the 3.0l engine was already adequate, and this gets a good boost in torque while getting a projected 20/25 mpg?

    I'm going to go put down my deposit so I can get Fitzmall's first '08. :shades:
  • bman33bman33 Member Posts: 85
    Unfortunately I'm not kidding, Juice. Calling the current 3.0 liter adequate shows your blind loyalty to the brand.

    Compared to our other car, an Audi A6 with a 250 HP 2.7 liter Turbocharged engine, the poor Tribeca feels Geo-slow off the line and needs to stay above 4000 for any sort of responsiveness.

    32 ft/lbs of torque will certainly help get the Tribeca to the starting line of one of the most competitive car categories, but hardly set it above the fray.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Keep in mind this is tuned to run on regular gas, not so with the Audi and many others in this class.

    As you know, being an owner of the 3.0, the tranny does a lot of gear hunting because the engine is somewhat "peaky." I don't expect that to be the case with the 3.6. I bet, if you were to compare a graph showing the powerband, that the 3.6 will put out a whole lot more power in the low to mid RPM range, which is where it's most needed.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    For me this is a family car, not something I'd be taking to a road course. So yes, it's adequate. I had a loaner for a week, it's about as quick as my Forester that has served us well for 9 years.

    Keep in mind Highlanders are sold with a 2.4l engine that makes a whole lot less power. No contest. If the 3.0l Tribeca is inadequate, as you say, then what is a 4 cylinder Highlander? Dangerous?

    My Miata has 116hp and that's been adequate, too. I care more about handling than 1/4 mile times.

    Audi's 2.7T engine was a LEMON, are you kidding me? :lemon:

    Even on VWVortex, basically home turf for VW/Audi fanboys, they will tell you to avoid the 2.7T engine like the plague, because it's riddled with problems. No wonder they dropped it like a bad habit.

    Sure, it's quicker, if and when it's running. :D

    I'm not saying the 3.6l will be "above the fray", but it appears to be competitive and efficient, a very good balance of those two.
  • bman33bman33 Member Posts: 85
    The premium fuel requirement is not a big deal to me. 93 octane is only 12 cents more per gallon at my gas station. I do like that they are increasing the efficiency. Our Tribeca has averaged in the 18's since we owned it :cry:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Audi's 3.2l has at least been more reliable, but it's not significantly better than the Tribeca's 3.0l and it also requires premium fuel.

    Their 3.6l V6 is a whole lot better but I think the packaging doesn't allow them to use it with certain models.

    -juice
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Premium gas is a deal-breaker for many, like my wife.

    Premium may not mean much to you, yet you complain of 18 mpg? 18 (or likely better) mpg, running on regular will over the course of ownership will save you a fair amount of money.

    Bob
  • bman33bman33 Member Posts: 85
    Didn't need to go there, Juice, but since you did...

    (Note: removed line about loaner - didn't realize you were talking about your 9 year old Forester - do you even own a Tribeca, Juice?)

    It's lame to make unsubstantiated claims about a car that you haven't owned and only "heard" about second hand from a message board. BTW, the VWVortex forum is hardly a good source for Audi feedback - 99% of the forum users are GTI/Jetta tuners, not Audi owners.

    My A6 (and many thousands of others on the Audiworld forum) has been trouble-free. The 2.7T engine is not a lemon.

    Audiworld is a good source for 2.7T feedback, and if you are so inclined, check it out. The C5 A6 w/ the 2.7T is one of the most popular cars because it offered excellent performance and aftermarket tunability. FYI, a $700 APR stage 1 chip bumps it to 312 HP and 370 ft/lbs.

    My Audi was purchased used with 25,000 miles on it and included the Audi-certified preowned extended service, so I am covered bumper to bumper for 7 years and 100,000 miles! It also included all scheduled mantainence for 4 years/50,000 miles, which I am still under.

    The Audi A6 is a great car and much more fun to drive than our safe, solid, yet under-powered Tribeca.

    Unfortunately, insulting other cars won't make the Tribeca sell better. A stomping motor will!
  • bman33bman33 Member Posts: 85
    I complain because we thought the Tribeca would net in the 20's with mostly HWY driving. It hasn't been that good. My A6 averages 24 mpg with the same type of driving.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Your A6 is a lot lighter and a lot more aerodynamic too. it would be more accurate to compare the Tribeca with the Pilot, Murano, and others in its class.

    Bob
  • bman33bman33 Member Posts: 85
    Not really, Bob. My A6 weighs 3964 lbs. Thats only 200 lbs lighter than the Tribeca. And the Tribeca is hardly an aerodynamic brick like a Tahoe, Expedition or Honda Pilot.

    20 - 25 mpg was what I was expecting from our 2006 Tribeca.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    VWVortex is loaded with Audi owners, in fact VMG also owns Fourtitude, and Audi-only site. I'll stop here in order to respect our host's rules about competing forums.

    Of course turbos are easier to tune, we see that with the WRX. But 99% of owners will get their engines stock, and that's what we should be discussing.

    I agree with Bob that you are comparing the wrong vehicle completely - does Audi make a V6 version of the Q7 yet? If so I seriously doubt it'll be any quicker than the Tribeca.

    The 3.2l V6 Touareg was a bit slow, but I'm sure the new 3.6l is more than adequate. Subaru is making a similar upgrade, except I'd wager than the H6 boxer performed better than the Touareg simply because the Tribeca is much lighter.

    Your CPO purchase was smart, and to be honest the only way I'd consider an Audi purchase would be under those terms.

    You just can't compare a sleeker, lighter sedan that costs a bunch more to a 3-row crossover/SUV/family vehicle. One is a sports sedan, the other just a people mover. Your expectations have to be adjusted accordingly.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Just to put this back in perspective, can you imagine if someone owned a Subaru Legacy GT spec.B and a VW Touareg, and then complained that the VW was slower and less efficient?

    I mean, that's exactly what you should expect. Where's the surprise here?

    FWIW we averaged 20.4 mpg the week we had it. This included a DC commute and one road trip on the weekend. Mileage varied pretty wildly from 13 to 25 mpg.

    Our Forester averages 25 mpg so I could live with that drop for all the extra space you get.
  • mayberryguymayberryguy Member Posts: 145
    I complain because we thought the Tribeca would net in the 20's with mostly HWY driving. It hasn't been that good. My A6 averages 24 mpg with the same type of driving.

    My wife's Tribeca just turned 20k and the lifetime avg MPG is 21.4 with Premium only. Her driving is 75% highway, 25% city. She uses Sport Drive most of the time in town so this hurts mileage a little but helps with performance. A worthwhile trade off in my book. It is not uncommon to get 24 - 25 mpg on a trip for us.

    IMO the Tribeca has decent power now. I can't wait to try the 3.6. It isn't a race car but neither are any other 3 liter - 4.0 liter sixes in SUV's. I would prefer a manual 6 speed in the Tribeca but oh well. I don't expect an SUV to be a rocket.

    We are extremely happy with our Tribeca and will lease another one if they don't screw up the exterior.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Nissan is putting a V8 in the Pathfinder, for those that do want to race their SUVs. IMO it's an answer to a question noone asked (or at least shouldn't have asked).
  • bman33bman33 Member Posts: 85
    Who said anything about racing? My expectations are no different than the majority of "sport" crossover buyers, and the Tribeca is definately not meeting them. The power deficiency is a big reason why Subaru can barely sell 1,000 Tribecas per month.

    I don't want a slow, boring family car and Subaru did not market the Tribeca as such. The seven-seat version was and is a joke, too.

    In its first incarnation, the Tribeca simply did not live up to its potential and I had high expectations for the revised version.

    It seems like every manufacturer can muster 280 HP from the 3.5 or 3.6 liter V-6's. The Tribeca coming up at 256 will not be competitive.
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    A reliable poster on NASIOC came up w/these numbers:

    "Assuming the Tribeca's curb weight doesn't change, a fully loaded Tribeca with 254hp would have 16.7lbs/hp. That's better than the Pilot (18.5lbs/hp) and CX-9 (17.3lbs/hp), equal to the Murano (16.65lbs/hp), and worse than the FX35 (15.7), MDX (15.3), and RX350 (15.2). It should be competent, but not special, from a performance standpoint."

    So, here's the ranking in hp/weight, followed by MPG & torque:
    RX350 (19/24 mpg) (251 tq)
    MDX (17/22 mpg) (275 tq)
    FX35 (16/21 mpg) (268 tq)
    Tribeca (virtual tie) (20/25 expected mpg) (247 tq)
    Murano (virtual tie) (20/24 mpg) (244 tq)
    "zoom zoom" CX-9 (16/22 mpg) (249 tq)
    Pilot (17/22 mpg) (240 tq)

    I think Subaru falls right where they want to... performance numbers are on-par with or above their non-luxury competitors, performance is respectable vs the luxury brands (MDX looks pretty strong, though), and MPG is likely to lead the bunch.

    Tribeca certainly doesn't set itself "above the fray". Better than the mainstream competition, though. Not much to complain about for the price. Perhaps down the road, if the style sells, they'll turbocharge the new 3.6 & bring the performance/lux brands into their sights like they've done w/the Legacy.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I never saw them use the sporting crossover angle in their marketing, in fact they emphasized it was a Progressive SUV over and over again.

    If anything they took a more luxurious/stylish angle to their marketing. The Dust in the Wind ads implied the design made older designs seem obsolete.

    I must've seen that ad a million times, and IIRC they show the Tribeca cruising along slowly past the blocky/square competitors. You don't hear engines revving.

    All I can tell you is you should take longer test drives before you make final decisions. The 3.0l H6 wasn't any less powerful the day you bought it. If there is such a huge "power deficiency" now, you're telling me you didn't notice this before? Did you not drive it?

    Subaru surely could have squeezed 280hp from 3.6l, but then it would require premium fuel. I'd argue that (and polarizing style) turned away more buyers than any power deficit.

    When it came out in MY2006 the best-selling Highlander only made 215hp from the upgrade engine. Toyota sold 6 times as many Highlanders with 35 fewer horsepower.

    Ironically they put in the much more powerful 3.5l and sales have dropped.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I agree. I think at some point we will see a turbo 3.6, but that's down the road. Subaru is offering an engine in the 3.6 that will satisfy a great majority of the buyers; better power than the old 3.0 with great powerband and running on regular gas. Sounds like a winner to me.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The MDX starts for over $40 grand now. The FX and RX are also well up there in price.

    So in its price class, Subaru leads the segment, because I'd say the extra 1 mpg highway plus 3 lb-ft of torque along with a bit more space easily give it the edge in the tie breaker. :shades:

    The difference here is that Jeff and I are looking at torque, which is what really pays the bills, not HP.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Coming out with a turbo will be a double-edged sword, because they risk alienating their core customer, who wants value and environmental responsibility.

    To me it would make more sense for them to offer a turbo diesel, or perhaps even a hybrid? :confuse:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    By the way, the Murano actually gets 19/24 mpg with AWD. You listed the mileage for the FWD model.

    I think the 20/25 projections for the Tribeca are optimistic, to be honest. It can't be that good. ;)
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    As long as we are going to compare cars in different classes (A6 v. Tribeca)

    Let's throw my Armada in the mix, 4 wheel indy suspension, 0-60 times way way lower than somethng weighing in at 5400lbs+ Compared to the A6 I can't imagine why anyone would want to buy an A6????

    I have way more power, way more towing capacity, better offroad, probably just as quick 0-60 and 1/4 mile, I can seat 6 Paisanos.

    Why would I even consider an A6 then?

    -mike
  • bman33bman33 Member Posts: 85
    Take longer test drives? Thanks for the advice, but I haven't found a dealership that will let me take a demo car for several days. I understand why you wouldn't know this since you own a 9 year old Forester and haven't been into a car dealership in sometime.

    FYI, we purchased one of the first Tribeca's off the asembly line in April, 2005. Not too many to test drive during this period.

    And since this was my first experience with Subaru, it will probably be my last. First impressions make all the difference.
  • bman33bman33 Member Posts: 85
    Mike, I hope you leased the Armada. If not, good luck reselling that 12 mpg beast. And no, it won't beat my A6 to 60 :shades:
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    "I understand why you wouldn't know this since you own a 9 year old Forester and haven't been into a car dealership in sometime."

    You don't know juice very well. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles