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

Subaru Tribeca 2008

24567…15

Comments

  • stanbranstanbran Member Posts: 2
    Does anyone have an answer to why is Subaru considering us americans lesser species than others? I was holding off on the purchase of a new Tribeca with the hope that it will have Xenon HID lights in the future, like other competitors here, only to find out that this feature is going to be offered only to the canadians: "CANADIAN LINE-UP The 2008 Tribeca will be offered in three trim levels: the 5 passenger Tribeca, the Tribeca Limited Package with leather interior, and the 7-passenger Tribeca Premier Package with leather, third-row seating,navigation system and rear-seat DVD entertainment. In addition all 2008 Tribecas sold in Canada will be equipped with High Intensity Discharge (HID)headlights. Subaru Canada, Inc. will announce pricing for the 2008 Tribeca closer to the on sale date this summer"-from Subaru Canada website.
  • occkingoccking Member Posts: 346
    Maybe because much more "wilderness" up there? Get away from Montreal & Toronto at night & it is pretty dark outside. Got to watch out for the Moose!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Also because Subaru pricing is generally higher in Canada.

    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.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Just order em from north of the border!

    -mike
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Good point - they are at least available, and not even very far away.

    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.
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    "when will 2008 hit the dealer?"

    June.
  • mike1944mike1944 Member Posts: 16
    can anyone tell me the actual mpg they're getting city/highway/combined for the 2007/2008 tribeca.
  • occkingoccking Member Posts: 346
    Have 33k now. Per trip computer it indicates 20.7 average. Actual mileage perhaps 20.5 per usage 2/3 highw3ay 1/3 suburbs.
  • robotb9robotb9 Member Posts: 82
    Sounds about right. My trip computer is about 1 mpg too optimistic.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Noone has a 2008 yet. I'm not even sure they exist yet, besides some pre-production test mules.
  • morey000morey000 Member Posts: 384
    I'm getting what occking is getting. a combination of city and highway gives me 20-22mpg. The trip computer seems to be 0.5 to 1.0mpg optimistic.
  • scouziscouzi Member Posts: 28
    Well, in Canada, if you want to get a 7 seater, they force you to buy the DVD/NAV also at a base price of $US 46.5K .

    So we get the Xenon for a $8000. Nice deal!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The parts are available, so I'm sure a resourceful and handy person could install them.

    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.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    I'm planning on upgrading the LGT to HID lows and highs when I get it :) also will swap out the fogs for yellow bulbs and do the upgrade to allow the fogs to be on with only the parking lights on.

    -mike
  • cluelesspacluelesspa Member Posts: 648
    subaru insider newsletter has a link to the mini 2008 tribeca site:

    http://www.subaru.com/sub/misc/2008/autoshow/ny0311/tribeca/index.html
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Funny thing is they put "REGULAR" for fuel in all caps. Making a big deal out of this.
  • tinycadontinycadon Member Posts: 287
    But here's the main problem I always saw with the Tribecca, the size of the gas tank, did they at least make THAT bigger this time???
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Nope, no change, still 16.9 gallons from what I hear.

    At least the mileage is supposedly better, so your practical range improves.

    Still, it should have at least a 20 gallon capacity.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    I dunno, I have 27gal in my Armada and it's more than enough, especially with the V8. 19 or 20 would be more than adequet for the Tribecca I would think. I usually need a break before I run out of gas, even towing.

    -mike
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I just hate having to stop. Keep in mind for me a lot of it is city driving.

    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.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    You aren't going to save that much money with a few more gallons, heck the extra weight will probably out-weigh it. Most cars are not designed to go more than 300 miles on a tank of gas. I just don't see the urgency for a huge tank in a country where gas stations are plentiful. Let's be honest folks, we don't cross the outback!

    -mike
  • erik_herik_h Member Posts: 77
    I have a Lexus RX with a small tank (17.2) and it only has a useful size of around 13 gallons before it needs to be refilled. All too often I find it too small especially on trips.

    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.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,790
    During the winter months I get about 250 out of a tank (~13 gallons refill) on my '07 Outback. It does not seem like much, but considering that I get the same on a 20-gallon tank from my old Chevy pickup, I think that's great! Once the weather warmed up in April, I started averaging more like 27 mpg. I put 410 miles on it on a trip down to Anchorage last weekend and only put in 14.7 gallons. I thought that was wonderful! :blush:
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • tinycadontinycadon Member Posts: 287
    It's fine if all you're doing is driving around town, but I'm thinking of my own driving needs. I regularly make a 400 mile hwy trip and I would like to get there in 1 fill up, and did in my Murano (21gal). When I make a trip down to Florida, the less times I stop for gas, the faster I can get there. Juice is right, 20 gallons is a good number to have. And the weight of gas is 6lbs per gallon, so an extra 3 or 4 gallons is only 18-24lbs, which will not offset the mileage in any appreciable way.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    You should be stopping in less than 400 miles, no matter what. I know I wouldn't want to be on the road with someone who hasn't stopped in 400 miles! To me, that's just unsafe.

    -mike
  • ecgz88ecgz88 Member Posts: 14
    I think really depends on the first month sale, looks like moset dealer now don't have 07 stock, they just order one when customer need. I cannot remember when 07 launch, how much is the rebate?
  • tinycadontinycadon Member Posts: 287
    That might be your preference, but mine is getting from point A to point B in the shortest amount of time. I don't have a family so holding it for 6hrs is not a big deal, and driving in the Northeast keeps me W I D E awake, it's not like driving 400 miles through the country south.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Hmm well buy a bigger tank then. :)

    -mike
  • tinycadontinycadon Member Posts: 287
    :shades: well, I went with the murano over the tribeca for just that reason, even though I really like subarus.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Hmm so you bought a murano for the sole reason that it has a further distance to E? That's pretty impressive and I'd beg to differ that that was the ONLY reason.

    -mike
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Well, similar styling for the 06-07, and those two models pretty much lead the class in fuel efficiency. I can see why they'd be compared.

    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).
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    I guess I'm so used to driving about 20k+ miles that I don't even think about stopping for gas anymore, combine that with filling up the race car on the trailer or the boat on the trailer... :)

    -mike
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I hear ya! Can't imagine how much gas the boat goes through.

    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. :D

    With the kids, though, I hate stopping.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    A week ago I put in 150 gal of 87 at 2.65/gal

    I'll let you do the math on that bill.

    -mike
  • movedormovedor Member Posts: 65
    I did glance at the "B9 Tribeca Changes I'd Like To See" discussion and see that Subaru really hear its customers (or at least they read Edmunds.com forum :-)).

    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?
  • tinycadontinycadon Member Posts: 287
    That was the 1st reason, the 2nd one that sealed the deal was the horrific front end styling, small gas tank AND rough on the eyes, not a good combo.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    My calculator doesn't have that many numbers. ;)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Given this is the MMM (mid-model makeover) they managed to change an impressive amount. Usually it's a new front and rear bumper and shuffled option packages.

    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:
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,790
    I'll let you do the math on that bill.

    If you want to play, then you must pay.... :P
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Hee, agreed, I never complain. Put $400 worth in and will gladly put another $400 in when the time comes. :)

    -mike
  • movedormovedor Member Posts: 65
    Certainly lack of 3rd row seat legroom cannot be solved without a longer body, which to me would make Tribeca less agile and less atractive for my needs.

    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.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Actually, it wasn't me that made the comparison, it was Car & Driver. They said if your eyes were closed you might think you were driving a BMW X5 3.0i.

    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.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I think it's safe to say that a wagon—of any brand—will out-handle it's SUV brother. I'm sure an Outback wagon will out-handle a Tribeca too, as it sits lower to the ground.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Naturally.

    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.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    IIRC AWD was not an option on the previous generation 5 series. I could be wrong though.

    -mike
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Excellent video here with David Sullivan, the SOA New Car Line Manager, on the new 3.6L engine, and how it differs from the 3.0L engine. There's a lot of good info here.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jXumIBFJMs

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Very cool to see that.

    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.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    I'll be curious to see what RPMs it turns at 65mph. Over the weekend I was towing the Baja with the Armada and had the cruise set on 65mph, was turning 1800rpms :)

    -mike
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    He had a slide with the gear ratios but it was too blurry to see the actual numbers. We'll get the specifics soon enough, I guess.

    Heck, I'll email him and ask him for a copy of those slides.
  • morey000morey000 Member Posts: 384
    I just dropped the hammer on my 3.0L '07 this morning. I'm not sure if I've ever gone all the way to the floor before.

    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- ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles