And for that exact reason, it would make more sense to me if they went with a single engine. There is just no way they sell enough volume to build two engines for a low volume crossover like the 'beca.
I just don't get it. They must have the most optimistic forecasters in the world.
The 3.6l should just replace the 3.0l. Work on making it fuel efficient if you must, just tune it that way.
This is bad news for me, as I'm waiting to see what the '08 looks like before I make any moves. Knowing that the 3.6l may be reserved for the pricier models may just price it out of my range, so the '08 would have the same engine as it does now.
I may just buy one that is Certified Pre-Owned. Found one locally for $26k that even has NAV, 7 seater LTD. That was about $32k new, so $6 grand off and it only has less than 8k miles.
What might make me wait for an '08 is upgrades like the engine and more cargo space. I just can't win. :sick:
This may be a long shot but what if the 3.6 is for a longer wheelbase 7P. That 3rd row needs to be more spacious - IMHO this is why sales have been slow - not the grill.
"And for that exact reason, it would make more sense to me if they went with a single engine. There is just no way they sell enough volume to build two engines for a low volume crossover like the 'beca. "
Who says the two engines are solely for the B9 Tribeca? Putting a 3.6 in the Legacy/Outback might be overkill (unless it was some uber-STI), but it could easily end up in a larger sedan and other future vehicles. I think it's great news they're keeping both, 'cause there's no way the Tribeca alone would justify production of a 3.6, so there must be more models on the way. We know how much Subaru likes to re-use parts across the lineup as much as possible.
Maybe we'll see the 3.0 option go away from the Tribeca lineup when a diesel is available to take its place.
Any word if it is a completely different block? If it's a bored and stroked 3.0, I'd like to see how it fares given the EJ25 Phase I teething problems.
The only downside to the Sienna is the lack of a 4-wheel independent suspension. Even competitors like Honda's Odyssey and Nissan's Quest have provided that for years.
The big plus in a Sienna is the availability of AWD, albeit a rudimentary FWD biased system.
The big plus in a Sienna is the availability of AWD, albeit a rudimentary FWD biased system.
One thing I like is that Subaru hasn't jumped on the "run-flat" tire bandwagon. They are still improving.
The Sienna AWD doesn't have room for a spare tire (unless you stick it in the cargo area). So it comes with run-flat tires. There are a LOT of complaints about them in Sienna forums. Premature wear, expensive to replace, waits for replacements, etc.
With a (much smaller) Tribeca, its AWD system is better than the Sienna's, and you can put winter tires on the Tribeca with a spare. With a Sienna, you can put on winter tires, but you either have no spare or mount one in the cargo area.
I don't know yet Ken. I've asked that question over at nabisco, and those supposedly in the know don't know—but they're checking... Hope to know something shortly.
Sunday a hotel valet pulls up my Tribeca and compliments the ride and styling. This morning, a guy in the day care parking lot comes up and says 'I love the way your car looks'. I get frequent unsolicited compliments on the Tribeca -- my point here is that the looks are far from the whole disappointing sales story.
Also this morning, there's a long article in the NY Times about small cars and safety. Pictures of Toyotas, Hondas, etc., everything else. Only at the end of the article is there mention that only the Subaru Impreza, it's twin the Saab 9-2X, and the Honda Civic are Gold Safety PIcks. Where's the PR/marketing dept.?
As the best politician usually wins, people more or less buy what they're sold. Is there a better safety and reliability story to tell than Subaru? Does 'Think. Feel. Drive' mean anything to anyone? They've got to get they're marketing act together.
I'm in the camp of liking the Tribeca's looks. They may be polarizing but I think they grow on you.
Yesterday, I caught on in my rearview mirror. IMHO, the nose is Cayenne-esque. To me, that's not a bad thing. Redo the grill and it might be able to pass for the Porsche.
I'm aware they can't saturate like several other manufacturers. That puts even more onus on the ad/marketing to cut through to people with what they've got.
being a 5 time subaru owner, i just couldn't be convinced that tribeca will be better than my MPV. 1. less cargo 2. 3rd seat entry is akward 3. 3rd row has no leg room 4. 3rd row, kids can't see outside. 5. engine is noisy at low speeds. 6. visibility 7.premium fuel
even Cx-9 will fare better than tribeca.
Either they improve tribeca or else it will be another Baja.
I don't think it was meant to compete with your MPV... it's a 5-passenger crossover with the ability the carry 2 more in a pinch, not a minivan. Any minivan has those same advantages over a B9 Tribeca, and I don't think Subaru is really marketing the vehicle to appeal to folks who routinely carry more than four or five passengers. Tribeca's meant to replace SUVs, not minivans.
The Tribeca has plenty of advantages over the MPV as well... AWD, much nicer interior, better fit & finish, better safety ratings, better handling, better ride.
That said, yes, they do need to improve B9 Tribeca.
don;t get me wrong, i wasn;t comparing with my MPV. i was saying i couldn;t find a compelling reason to buy B9 for over 30k with this many issues listed above.
I'm looking at CPO Tribecas. Found one for $26k with 3 rows, Limited, and NAV with just 8k miles on it.
The CX9 looks nice, but there's a lot of Ford DNA there, including the Duratec engine. Probably Haldex AWD since that's what's in the parts bin, so that means FWD by default. Plus it's unproven, a new Ford engine.
I've driven a CX7 and it disappointed me. Small inside, big outside, lots of turbo lag. An Outback XT is better in every way, it only sits lower. I do find the CX7's styling simply gorgeous.
Test drove a Hyundai Sonata yesterday, wifey had one of those test drive offers for who knows what. Competent sedan, quick even, but bored me to tears. Seats too flat. Quiet and roomy, though. Middle of rear seat is a penalty area.
Then I sat in a Santa Fe. It's not nearly as nice as the Tribeca inside, and more narrow. The 2nd row's middle seat is also uncomfy, stiff as a board.
I checked because the kids sit outboard and the nanny squeezes in the middle. Neither the Sonata nor the Santa Fe passed that comfort test.
Tribeca does. The 40/20/40 seat means that middle "20" seat is actually comfortable.
Toyota Sienna is another vehicle on my short list that gets it right. Explorer does too but it's not on my list, fails to meet several criteria I have actually.
Are you considering it for a test drive. I'll be looking into it and waiting to hear from the dealer for a test drive. This will replace my wife's Tribute if it rides well, hopefully...
17" rims and VDC for the automatic. Still a 4 speed and no SportShift, though. A bit ironic that they call it Direct Control when it's the one trans they have where you cannot directly control what gear it's in.
Putting in a 4-speed in cars like the EAT WRX and the Turbo Forester is a shameful event, to put it mildly. :mad:
Even micro-compacts like Honda's Fit, their compact Civic and every other car in their lineup, comes with a 5-speed EAT. It is a shame that Subarus retailing for nearly $30K, come with a 4-spd EAT.
I agree. It's doubly shameful that Subaru is phasing out manual transmissions altogether on some of their models, only to lag behind the market in their automatic transmission offerings. With 5sp automatics commonplace now and 6, 7, and even 8 speed automatics showing up across other manufacturer's lines, it's inconceivable why Subaru is still foisting 4sp autos on people...it's not like they don't already *have* the technology. I just don't get it... :confuse:
Didn't Patti let us know what "Direct Control" was about? That intro'ed a few years ago -- thought it was marketing speak for a lockup TC that engaged quicker.
I believe it's because you can select gears 1,2,3,D directly with the shifter. Most other auto trans shift levers dont' have all the gears available like that.
nope, it wasn't anything to do with being able to select a specific gear. here's a post from me about it, as well as a follow up from Patti with a more technical answer:
5 and 6 speed automatics are conventional automatics. 7 or 8 is not-- it's a CVT. a conventional automatic with a torque converter and 7 or 8 planetary gears would be massive, whereas a CVT can emulate how many ever gears you want.
a CVT really should not emulate any, but people expect a car to shift.
however, on the original point, I totally agree that Subaru is way behind on automatic transmission technology-- or at least implementation.
that's a massive transmission behind the S class' 500-600lb/ft of torque. my comments stand even though someone has actually produced a seven speed planetary gearset-- it has nothing to do with normal sedans using a 4, 5, or 6 speed automatic.
The Mercedes 7 speed automatic and Lexus' 8 speed automatic (just to name two) are most definitely not CVT's...they are conventional transmissions like the old-timey 4sp auto.
it has nothing to do with normal sedans using a 4, 5, or 6 speed automatic.
But the VW Passat has a six speed ordinary JAPANESE automatic. I don't recall whether it is from the same manufacturer that makes the guts of the Subaru tranmission. Subaru uses outside-made automatic transmissions and puts them in it's own case for AWD.
The problem is probably tooling costs for the special Subaru transmission case with AWD. This suggests that the five speed EAT is the best we'll see for a long time. Subaru production volume is limiting, unless augmented by Toyota use of the same parts changes the situation. By the way, is the new Camry auto trans six speed?
Yes, but the guts might be transferable to a new (Subaru)case. I believe the present Subaru autotrans couild be guts from a front wheel drive case. However I think the present auto trans is one common with Nissan (Remember the Subaru-Nissan previous link). Many do not remember that there was once even an AWD Nissan wagon based on Subaru AWD technology that was only sold in Japan.
A shift to the Toyota/Ford 6 speed auto trans guts might be very expensive, but Toyota might help Fugi with the costs to produce future mutual cost reductions if Toyota intends to use Subaru AWD eventually.
It's got to be more than coincidence that the gear ratios in the Subaru 5EAT and Nissan 5AT are identical. I am sure everything else about the ATs is different, but they appear to at least be using the same gearset.
I believe even the power window switches etc of the Impreza, were identical to the switches employed within the Japanese built Nissans. Probably a common supplier ?
Comments
Bob
I just don't get it. They must have the most optimistic forecasters in the world.
The 3.6l should just replace the 3.0l. Work on making it fuel efficient if you must, just tune it that way.
This is bad news for me, as I'm waiting to see what the '08 looks like before I make any moves. Knowing that the 3.6l may be reserved for the pricier models may just price it out of my range, so the '08 would have the same engine as it does now.
I may just buy one that is Certified Pre-Owned. Found one locally for $26k that even has NAV, 7 seater LTD. That was about $32k new, so $6 grand off and it only has less than 8k miles.
What might make me wait for an '08 is upgrades like the engine and more cargo space. I just can't win. :sick:
-juice
That 3rd row needs to be more spacious - IMHO this is why sales have been slow - not the grill.
Charlie
I've been asking for a people mover Subaru for ages, but I don't want a near-luxury price.
-juice
Agreed juice,
Toyota got much BETTER mpg when they went from 3.3 to 3.5 liters recently. Perhaps they'll provide some help to Fugi on this front.
Dave
-juice
Who says the two engines are solely for the B9 Tribeca? Putting a 3.6 in the Legacy/Outback might be overkill (unless it was some uber-STI), but it could easily end up in a larger sedan and other future vehicles. I think it's great news they're keeping both, 'cause there's no way the Tribeca alone would justify production of a 3.6, so there must be more models on the way.
Maybe we'll see the 3.0 option go away from the Tribeca lineup when a diesel is available to take its place.
If I were to buy a minivan it would be a Sienna, but of course I would really rather have a WRX wagon with the 3.0l six.
Dave
Ken
Sorry to nitpick, but it's "Fuji" (like the mountain) not "Fugi".
Ken
The only downside to the Sienna is the lack of a 4-wheel independent suspension. Even competitors like Honda's Odyssey and Nissan's Quest have provided that for years.
The big plus in a Sienna is the availability of AWD, albeit a rudimentary FWD biased system.
One thing I like is that Subaru hasn't jumped on the "run-flat" tire bandwagon. They are still improving.
The Sienna AWD doesn't have room for a spare tire (unless you stick it in the cargo area). So it comes with run-flat tires. There are a LOT of complaints about them in Sienna forums. Premature wear, expensive to replace, waits for replacements, etc.
With a (much smaller) Tribeca, its AWD system is better than the Sienna's, and you can put winter tires on the Tribeca with a spare. With a Sienna, you can put on winter tires, but you either have no spare or mount one in the cargo area.
Maybe they do have a new model in mind, a large sedan perhaps?
-juice
Bob
Also this morning, there's a long article in the NY Times about small cars and safety. Pictures of Toyotas, Hondas, etc., everything else. Only at the end of the article is there mention that only the Subaru Impreza, it's twin the Saab 9-2X, and the Honda Civic are Gold Safety PIcks. Where's the PR/marketing dept.?
As the best politician usually wins, people more or less buy what they're sold. Is there a better safety and reliability story to tell than Subaru? Does 'Think. Feel. Drive' mean anything to anyone? They've got to get they're marketing act together.
Yesterday, I caught on in my rearview mirror. IMHO, the nose is Cayenne-esque. To me, that's not a bad thing. Redo the grill and it might be able to pass for the Porsche.
-juice
1. less cargo
2. 3rd seat entry is akward
3. 3rd row has no leg room
4. 3rd row, kids can't see outside.
5. engine is noisy at low speeds.
6. visibility
7.premium fuel
even Cx-9 will fare better than tribeca.
Either they improve tribeca or else it will be another Baja.
The Tribeca has plenty of advantages over the MPV as well... AWD, much nicer interior, better fit & finish, better safety ratings, better handling, better ride.
That said, yes, they do need to improve B9 Tribeca.
The CX9 looks nice, but there's a lot of Ford DNA there, including the Duratec engine. Probably Haldex AWD since that's what's in the parts bin, so that means FWD by default. Plus it's unproven, a new Ford engine.
I've driven a CX7 and it disappointed me. Small inside, big outside, lots of turbo lag. An Outback XT is better in every way, it only sits lower. I do find the CX7's styling simply gorgeous.
Test drove a Hyundai Sonata yesterday, wifey had one of those test drive offers for who knows what. Competent sedan, quick even, but bored me to tears. Seats too flat. Quiet and roomy, though. Middle of rear seat is a penalty area.
Then I sat in a Santa Fe. It's not nearly as nice as the Tribeca inside, and more narrow. The 2nd row's middle seat is also uncomfy, stiff as a board.
I checked because the kids sit outboard and the nanny squeezes in the middle. Neither the Sonata nor the Santa Fe passed that comfort test.
Tribeca does. The 40/20/40 seat means that middle "20" seat is actually comfortable.
Toyota Sienna is another vehicle on my short list that gets it right. Explorer does too but it's not on my list, fails to meet several criteria I have actually.
Even most vans fail that 2nd row test.
-juice
-juice
i will take if it comes for free !
It's completely different than the outgoing model, in terms of size and market segment.
It's also based on the Caliber platform, which is odd, but makes sense when you consider that the Jeep Compass and Patriot are as well.
-juice
-juice
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/10/31/sema-subaru-unveils-updated-forester-in-2-5-x- t-sports-form/
Was hoping for suspension upgrades on the Sports!
25 NX 450h+ / 24 Sienna Plat AWD / 23 Civic Type-R / 21 Boxster GTS 4.0
-juice
Even micro-compacts like Honda's Fit, their compact Civic and every other car in their lineup, comes with a 5-speed EAT. It is a shame that Subarus retailing for nearly $30K, come with a 4-spd EAT.
Ken
subearu, "Subaru Crew - Meet The Members II" #15553, 18 Jul 2003 1:15 pm
ohmy2, "Subaru Crew - Meet The Members II" #15587, 22 Jul 2003 3:48 am
-Brian
a CVT really should not emulate any, but people expect a car to shift.
however, on the original point, I totally agree that Subaru is way behind on automatic transmission technology-- or at least implementation.
~Colin
http://www.gizmag.com/go/1957/
~Colin
B
But the VW Passat has a six speed ordinary JAPANESE automatic. I don't recall whether it is from the same manufacturer that makes the guts of the Subaru tranmission. Subaru uses outside-made automatic transmissions and puts them in it's own case for AWD.
The problem is probably tooling costs for the special Subaru transmission case with AWD. This suggests that the five speed EAT is the best we'll see for a long time. Subaru production volume is limiting, unless augmented by Toyota use of the same parts changes the situation. By the way, is the new Camry auto trans six speed?
I think V6 is, but it's probably a FWD transaxle, inapplicable to "symmetrical" AWD.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
A shift to the Toyota/Ford 6 speed auto trans guts might be very expensive, but Toyota might help Fugi with the costs to produce future mutual cost reductions if Toyota intends to use Subaru AWD eventually.