The New York Times has a nice blurb in its Sunday auto section about the Tribeca and Impreza. These are the first cars mentioned in an article about notable debuts.
I mentioned some time ago that I thought if Subaru took the current Legacy GT and just slapped on the exterior Outback body trappings (grille, cladding), and called it an Outback GT, that it would be a great idea. It would address the wants of those who would rather a GT-type wagon, and not step on the Outback XT's toes.
I really like the "Tarmac" name, but would rather see that used on a 2-seat sports car.
Australia will also be getting the 4-door, but a year after we do. Up until now all indications were that the 4-door Impreza was for North America only.
Interesting idea to keep the GT alive in spirit. There have been a few OB owners over at LGT.com that have lowered it into GT-format.
One thing I'm not too sure about is if the target customer for an OB GT would be so crazy about the body cladding. Speaking for myself, GT wagon customers tend to cross shop other sport wagons and not SUVs. Perhaps tone it down a bit to keep the family resemblance but not the chunky SUV-look?
Charles pointed out an interesting character line that goes from the headlight all the way to the taillight. Funny, because even now, I look at photos and can hardly see it, even knowing where to look. You just have to see this car in 3D.
Also, the concave door panels look subtle in the photos, but open the doors and WOW, they go out, in, then back out again. The concavity is rather pronouned. You notice this more with the blue paint than you do with more subdued hues.
Overall the design is definitely not as bland as it looks in 2D, so I urge people to go see it in person, in 3D. Reaction from people who saw only the Motor Trend pics was awful, but reactions from people who have seen it in person have been nearly universally good.
It was funny to sit in front of the grille and play Monday morning quarter back, but Bob, Charles, and I all had different suggestions on how to fix it. We all agreed that it's an easy face-lift and even that the aftermarket will surely produce grilles that will make this look a whole lot better.
The tail lights reminded me a lot of this:
LEDs are in different shapes but unlit they look the same. The WRX connects them with a chrome strip that looks good on the hatch, but out of place on the sedan (it doesn't match up with any body lines).
Bob noted a kink on the bottom of the sedan's taillights, and we noted this trend in several other cars at the show. The shape is more complex than it first seems in 2D.
How weird that the 2.5l sedan has dual exhaust and the WRX hatch does not. :confuse:
OK, no space, but why does the 2.5i sedan have it? Seems like unnecessary added weight and cost.
Any how, go see it, you gottta see it in 3D to truly see all the character lines. Who knows, you may like it more or even less, but until you see it in person don't make that final judgement call.
I'll give it a qualified thumbs up - I'd start shopping for an aftermarket grille the day I got one. :shades:
Also, the concave door panels look subtle in the photos, but open the doors and WOW, they go out, in, then back out again. The concavity is rather pronouned. You notice this more with the blue paint than you do with more subdued hues.
I am least concerned about the "concavity" or "convexity" of a couple of body panels. The overall look is what matters. If I were in the market for a high-performance small sedan, I would look at the new Mitsubishi EVO, before even considering a WRX Sedan, at this point. It runs circles around the WRX from a technological perspective and subjectively, is much better looks wise.
But since I am not interested in a Sedan, the EVO is not an option for me. If the EVO came as a hatch or a wagon, that is what I would go for.
I have no overall problems with the looks of the WRX hatch, other than the tail-lights. The concern I have is about the carryover 4EAT in a 2008 model year intro. Who suggested to these guys to go back to their 2002/2003 model year 2-pot brakes (I am assuming that is what is on the new WRX and not the larger 2-pot GT brakes) and move away from their latest 4-pot brakes ? Why downsize the tire-size from 215/45-17 to 205/50-17, in a completely redesigned product ?
The exterior looks or concavity of a couple of body panels, is the least of my concerns, frankly.
The EVO is a competitor for the STI, not the WRX. We won't see the STI until next fall, at the earliest. I think it's safe to assume that it will more aggressive looking than the WRX, and certainly the "spec" content will be of a much level than that found on the WRX.
Yes, they are the same brakes as on the LGT. My understanding is that these are actually better than the previous 4-pots, and they are certainly less mechanically complex.
How are they less mechanically complex? They are actually more complex and who said they are "better".
The FHI 4-pots were great for several reasons: -No deflection as you find with 2-pot brakes -CHEAP and I mean significantly CHEAPER replacement Pads -Ease of Replacement, not even a wrench all you needed was a set of channel locks and you were good to go.
As mentioned above, the EVO doesn't compete with the WRX. The Lancer Ralliart is actually closer to it.
Plus, the EVO X is based on the Dodge Caliber platform. I wouldn't be too thrilled about that structure. Oddly enough it's also used for a 3-row SUV (Mitsubishi Outlander), which is just bizarre.
Bottom line is that platform was not nearly purpose built for the Lancer, much less the EVO.
Every car has its flaws, and the EVO X is far from perfect. At the show Charles noted there is no front bumper - the grille is the first thing that touches, so there is zero margin for error when you park.
It's grille actually looks like the 95-99 Legacy grille, and those swept back lights are very similar to the late 90s/early 00s Galants IIRC.
And it's on a modified caliber chassis? ugh, well I guess I'm back on the old fence!
Also checked out the MPG of the Tc v. 07 Impreza 2.5i, almost the same milage and same price, so no bargain there. I think I'm gonna rock the 240sx with 200k miles for the summer or until it breaks whichever comes first and then hopefully save up some cash toward a SpecB.
Why downsize the tire-size from 215/45-17 to 205/50-17, in a completely redesigned product ?
Probably to improve fuel economy. With AWD, Subaru needs every fractional mpg to remain in compliance with CAFE requirements. A slight wheel weight reduction doesn't hurt either for both ride and reduction of wheel bounce.
The more bores and pistons in a brake, the more the force is distributed and overall pressure in the bore is lower (scales like 1/N where N is the number of bores). But that does not mean a 2-piston setup can't be designed to be more rigid and have less deflection than a 4-piston setup. There are a lot of factors involved in this, and you can't just go by the number of bores/pistons (whether it may be true in a particular case or not). In reality, the calipers all put the same force/bite down on the rotor, so the ultimate load is the same no matter what. That is often the biggest factor in the design, and a more compact (more rigid) 2-piston caliper can actually have less deflection and less bulk than a larger/wider 4-piston setup.
As far as mechanical complexity, the fewer pistons the less complex. Each piston has bores, seals, boots, etc... that can fail. And it's not like an airplane where you get redundancy. A 4-pot caliper has almost twice as many moving parts. Yes the 4-pot will have lower bore pressures than a 2-pot for the same master pressure, but that's again only one factor.
I agree 100% that having more smaller pistons can make a caliper better by spreading out the load and allowing larger pads with less pad deflection, but it doesn't prevent someone from designing a caliper with fewer pistons that does just as well or even better. I keep hearing people complain like we got gypped out of 2 extra pots, but it's a lot more complicated than that. I think the Leg GT brakes will do fine in the WRX -- certainly better than the old WRX 2-pots. Whether they are better than the recent 4-pot WRX brakes is up for debate. I just wouldn't judge based on the number of bores/pistons in the caliper.
I agree with you in concept. However, I'm talking about real world on-track experience with THESE PARTICULAR BRAKES in question here. The FHI 4-pots are better than the 2-pot ones. This isn't a case of me just saying I want 4-pots and crying like a baby about them without justification. I'm not crying and asking for the big Brembos on the STi, cause those Pads and Rotors are significantly more expensive and are not proportionally better than the FHI 4-pots.
As for seals, I run my cars HARD and after 100k miles with probably 10k-20k of track and racing miles, I finally had to rebuild the 4-piston FHI calipers at a cost of $20.
Oh and the FHI ones can fit under 16" rims whereas I don't believe the LGT ones can.
So IN THIS CASE, it's a matter of they should have put the 4-pot FHI calipers on but cheaped out as they did in the first 3-4 years of production of the USDM WRX.
Liked it, but the driver isn't comfy due to a strange protrusion from the center console. The GPS screen is way too dim and the heated seats only have one single setting - BAKE!
It's a great package overall but these miscues are a bit tough to overlook.
I forgot to mention it also doesn't have a trip computer.
Mazda is close, and these are things they could fix for model year 2008, to be honest.
FWIW, I just installed 2004 WRX 2pots on my GF4 (which came with dinky rotors and single pistons). Wowie zowie, a major upgrade. Like 3/4" more rotor, but stopping ability is noticeably better, so I guess it's also a matter of perspective.
Juice, One thing to note about your review, as of this summer, you will be able to get a rear-view camera in a CX9 without navigation, just one that shows up in the rear view mirror. [Posting here because other forum is read-only, and I saw your link from here ]
Plus, the EVO X is based on the Dodge Caliber platform. I wouldn't be too thrilled about that structure.
I think the Caliber borrowed the platform of the Mitsubishi Lancer. Not the other way around. If say GM still had a stake in Subaru and if their next gen Chevy Cavalier "borrowed" the platform of the Impreza, I am certain people will go around stating that the Impreza is based on the Cavalier's platform, even though there will not be anything from the Chevy in the Impreza.
I visited the NY autoshow today and I personally did not find the looks of the Hatch objectionable at all (other than the taillights). It is only the feature downgrades that I am not too impressed about. The Sedan was a complete letdown from a looks perspective (specifically the rear)....too dowdy.
Also, are we sure that the WRX comes with the Legacy GT's brakes ? I did not feel they were the same, by eyeballing the WRX brakes and those from the Legacy 3.0R that was parked close to it. Maybe it was my imagination but the WRX brakes looked markedly smaller than the Legacy 3.0R's. Does the 3.0R use larger brakes than the GT ?
By adding that extra black cladding to the bottom door edge, Subaru made Tribeca look taller, adding to the new "beefy SUV" look. Never really noticed it 'til Bob's post earlier made mention, and then could really see a difference in that video.
Juice - I read the '08 Tribeca's 2nd row seatback is now 60/40 split fold. I know it slides 60/40, but does it now fold 60/40 too, instead of 40/20/40? Anyone know?
Chrysler and Mitsu have been sharing parts (entire engines in many cases) for quite a while, I'm sure that platform was designed with the 3-row Outlander in mind. It had to be. It also had to be built to cost for a low budget Caliber.
If Subaru made compromises due to cost for a Cavalier and a Suzuki XL7 then yes, I'd be concerned.
Note the Forester is criticized for being a bit small and too short (Impreza got the priority). These are compromises due to the shared platform with the Impreza. At least they were compromises I was willing to take to end up with a sportier vehicle.
Jeff: sorry, didn't fold the 20 part of the seat. It looked like the same seat to me, the only change was the removal of that knob that used to prevent the seat from going all the way back for a 3rd row that didn't exist on the 5 seat models.
Here's a pic of that knob, now present only on the 5+2 models:
Mileage is very poor. I didn't mention that because EPA numbers aren't always accurate, but it would definitely be a concern. Those numbers are just awful. :sick:
The Outlook's cargo area is much bigger, by the way, though you might consider that a full-size.
Note the Forester is criticized for being a bit small and too short (Impreza got the priority).
Have you ever compared (and sat inside) a Honda CRV and then sat inside a Honda Civic Coupe ? They are built on the same platform ! The relatively huge space inside a CRV, simply cannot be compared size-wise with that in a petite Civic. Hell, even the larger Accord is way smaller size-wise to the civic-platform-based CRV. So the Impreza/Forester argument is not very valid, since that is how Subaru preferred to implement the platform in the Forester.
Simply sharing a platform does not mean a thing. It is the details and how the platform is finally implemented that matters.
Again, the previous generation Lancer, shared the platform with the ferocious EVO. It just means that the lower-end Lancer platform is excellent, since it formed the basis for the EVO, even though anybody driving the Lancer and then the EVO would never imagine that they are drawn from a common base.
As far as the Caliber is concerned, I would say that it is leaps and bounds above the rest of the Dodge models in the same price range (and even its predecessor the Neon), because it is now sharing components from the Lancer. It does not mean that the components put into the EVO have been cheapened because a Chrysler model happens to draw some of the mechanicals from its lower-end twin. That is reaching to form conclusions, imo.
As an aside, something that is not universally known is that the Chrysler 300, the Dodge Charger etc., are built on the previous generation Mercedes Benz E-class platform.
It is the details and how the platform is finally implemented that matters.
Agreed 100%.
That's why I said I am merely concerned, and not "I know it's bad".
Specific concerns for me are weight (due to the 3 row requirements) and rigidity (cost limitations placed by the Caliber). Let's see how Mitsu does.
VW/Audi do a great job making platforms flexible, but look at the Audi TT - for it to truly compete with the best they had to break away from the Golf platform.
The 300 uses large portions of the rear suspensions of the last-gen E-class, but I don't think they used the whole platform.
CX9 AWD gives only 16mpg. This is a serious problem
Wow is that city or highway?
I religiously get 13.5mpg driving my Armada in manhattan and anyone who has driven with me, knows that I'm not gentle on the thin pedal. That is HORRIBLE for the CX9 to get less than 3mpg better than the V8 Armada (and I'm running it in AWD mode too)
Absolutely true. I think in the future, automakers will get truly good at making flexible platforms, because that offers a compelling competitive advantage, when you can spread the costs of developing a platform, over vehicles in multiple market segments.
I might finally bite the bullet and go for a WRX 4EAT hatch(contingent on how it drives) but frankly I am not too thrilled at what I am getting. Or might order for a Legacy GT wagon, while they are still being made (I especially like the Diamond Grey color). The only saving grace with the WRX is that the TR version is available in the 2008 model year as an EAT (unlike the limited only 2007), which might bring the cost down to the low 20s.
It's probably too late to order a 2007 Legacy or Outback -- they usually stop current model year production in March or April (it really depends when the new models start production). But you might be able to do a dealer search to find one. I would look sooner rather than later -- they were already rare birds.
Comments
Bob
Ken
Bob
We take your OB or OBXT and convert it back to a Legacy GT.
SpecB Suspension pieces, Bilstiens, LGT front bumper, etc.
-mike
I really like the "Tarmac" name, but would rather see that used on a 2-seat sports car.
Bob
-mike
http://www.subaru.com.au/about-subaru/news/breaking-news/2007/04/04/sophisticate- - d-and-stylish-new-impreza-unveiled/
Oh, BTW, the only reason I'm posting right now is because juice is running late. Otherwise we'd be on the road to the NY show by now.
Bob
Juice should have my number give me a ring in the afternoon if you guys want to do some dinner before heading back to DC.
-mike
One thing I'm not too sure about is if the target customer for an OB GT would be so crazy about the body cladding. Speaking for myself, GT wagon customers tend to cross shop other sport wagons and not SUVs. Perhaps tone it down a bit to keep the family resemblance but not the chunky SUV-look?
Ken
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Canada had the AWP on their WRXs since 2002, I believe.
I shared my Tribeca impressions here:
ateixeira, "Subaru B9 Tribeca (B9X)" #8045, 10 Apr 2007 11:18 am
But I'll share my 08 WRX impressions here.
Charles pointed out an interesting character line that goes from the headlight all the way to the taillight. Funny, because even now, I look at photos and can hardly see it, even knowing where to look. You just have to see this car in 3D.
Also, the concave door panels look subtle in the photos, but open the doors and WOW, they go out, in, then back out again. The concavity is rather pronouned. You notice this more with the blue paint than you do with more subdued hues.
Overall the design is definitely not as bland as it looks in 2D, so I urge people to go see it in person, in 3D. Reaction from people who saw only the Motor Trend pics was awful, but reactions from people who have seen it in person have been nearly universally good.
It was funny to sit in front of the grille and play Monday morning quarter back, but Bob, Charles, and I all had different suggestions on how to fix it. We all agreed that it's an easy face-lift and even that the aftermarket will surely produce grilles that will make this look a whole lot better.
The tail lights reminded me a lot of this:
LEDs are in different shapes but unlit they look the same. The WRX connects them with a chrome strip that looks good on the hatch, but out of place on the sedan (it doesn't match up with any body lines).
Bob noted a kink on the bottom of the sedan's taillights, and we noted this trend in several other cars at the show. The shape is more complex than it first seems in 2D.
How weird that the 2.5l sedan has dual exhaust and the WRX hatch does not. :confuse:
OK, no space, but why does the 2.5i sedan have it? Seems like unnecessary added weight and cost.
Any how, go see it, you gottta see it in 3D to truly see all the character lines. Who knows, you may like it more or even less, but until you see it in person don't make that final judgement call.
I'll give it a qualified thumbs up - I'd start shopping for an aftermarket grille the day I got one. :shades:
Return of "Blazing Yellow"?
-Dave
I am least concerned about the "concavity" or "convexity" of a couple of body panels. The overall look is what matters. If I were in the market for a high-performance small sedan, I would look at the new Mitsubishi EVO, before even considering a WRX Sedan, at this point. It runs circles around the WRX from a technological perspective and subjectively, is much better looks wise.
But since I am not interested in a Sedan, the EVO is not an option for me. If the EVO came as a hatch or a wagon, that is what I would go for.
I have no overall problems with the looks of the WRX hatch, other than the tail-lights. The concern I have is about the carryover 4EAT in a 2008 model year intro. Who suggested to these guys to go back to their 2002/2003 model year 2-pot brakes (I am assuming that is what is on the new WRX and not the larger 2-pot GT brakes) and move away from their latest 4-pot brakes ? Why downsize the tire-size from 215/45-17 to 205/50-17, in a completely redesigned product ?
The exterior looks or concavity of a couple of body panels, is the least of my concerns, frankly.
Bob
You're right on the auto tranny - I'm stunned it's not a 5EAT.
The FHI 4-pots were great for several reasons:
-No deflection as you find with 2-pot brakes
-CHEAP and I mean significantly CHEAPER replacement Pads
-Ease of Replacement, not even a wrench all you needed was a set of channel locks and you were good to go.
-mike
So next year they can bring 215 tires back (or year after next). :sick:
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Plus, the EVO X is based on the Dodge Caliber platform. I wouldn't be too thrilled about that structure. Oddly enough it's also used for a 3-row SUV (Mitsubishi Outlander), which is just bizarre.
Bottom line is that platform was not nearly purpose built for the Lancer, much less the EVO.
Every car has its flaws, and the EVO X is far from perfect. At the show Charles noted there is no front bumper - the grille is the first thing that touches, so there is zero margin for error when you park.
And it's on a modified caliber chassis? ugh, well I guess I'm back on the old fence!
Also checked out the MPG of the Tc v. 07 Impreza 2.5i, almost the same milage and same price, so no bargain there. I think I'm gonna rock the 240sx with 200k miles for the summer or until it breaks whichever comes first and then hopefully save up some cash toward a SpecB.
-mike
Probably to improve fuel economy. With AWD, Subaru needs every fractional mpg to remain in compliance with CAFE requirements. A slight wheel weight reduction doesn't hurt either for both ride and reduction of wheel bounce.
As far as mechanical complexity, the fewer pistons the less complex. Each piston has bores, seals, boots, etc... that can fail. And it's not like an airplane where you get redundancy. A 4-pot caliper has almost twice as many moving parts. Yes the 4-pot will have lower bore pressures than a 2-pot for the same master pressure, but that's again only one factor.
I agree 100% that having more smaller pistons can make a caliper better by spreading out the load and allowing larger pads with less pad deflection, but it doesn't prevent someone from designing a caliper with fewer pistons that does just as well or even better. I keep hearing people complain like we got gypped out of 2 extra pots, but it's a lot more complicated than that. I think the Leg GT brakes will do fine in the WRX -- certainly better than the old WRX 2-pots. Whether they are better than the recent 4-pot WRX brakes is up for debate. I just wouldn't judge based on the number of bores/pistons in the caliper.
As for seals, I run my cars HARD and after 100k miles with probably 10k-20k of track and racing miles, I finally had to rebuild the 4-piston FHI calipers at a cost of $20.
Oh and the FHI ones can fit under 16" rims whereas I don't believe the LGT ones can.
So IN THIS CASE, it's a matter of they should have put the 4-pot FHI calipers on but cheaped out as they did in the first 3-4 years of production of the USDM WRX.
-mike
Liked it, but the driver isn't comfy due to a strange protrusion from the center console. The GPS screen is way too dim and the heated seats only have one single setting - BAKE!
It's a great package overall but these miscues are a bit tough to overlook.
I forgot to mention it also doesn't have a trip computer.
Mazda is close, and these are things they could fix for model year 2008, to be honest.
One thing to note about your review, as of this summer, you will be able to get a rear-view camera in a CX9 without navigation, just one that shows up in the rear view mirror.
[Posting here because other forum is read-only, and I saw your link from here
Ford Media Release on CX9 rear view mirror / camera
Hmm, that image is pretty tiny, though. I'd have to try it.
I think it would take a while to get used to. Even though the feature works well, the driver has to learn how to use it.
I haven't tried Subaru's system, but I will before I decide what to buy.
http://www.worldcarfans.com/news.cfm/newsID/2070404.005/pageview/photo/photo/1/p- - age/1/lang/eng/country/jcf/subaru/2008-subaru-b9-tribeca-at-new-york
I think the Caliber borrowed the platform of the Mitsubishi Lancer. Not the other way around. If say GM still had a stake in Subaru and if their next gen Chevy Cavalier "borrowed" the platform of the Impreza, I am certain people will go around stating that the Impreza is based on the Cavalier's platform, even though there will not be anything from the Chevy in the Impreza.
I visited the NY autoshow today and I personally did not find the looks of the Hatch objectionable at all (other than the taillights). It is only the feature downgrades that I am not too impressed about. The Sedan was a complete letdown from a looks perspective (specifically the rear)....too dowdy.
Also, are we sure that the WRX comes with the Legacy GT's brakes ? I did not feel they were the same, by eyeballing the WRX brakes and those from the Legacy 3.0R that was parked close to it. Maybe it was my imagination but the WRX brakes looked markedly smaller than the Legacy 3.0R's. Does the 3.0R use larger brakes than the GT ?
Juice - I read the '08 Tribeca's 2nd row seatback is now 60/40 split fold. I know it slides 60/40, but does it now fold 60/40 too, instead of 40/20/40? Anyone know?
2018 430i Gran Coupe
If Subaru made compromises due to cost for a Cavalier and a Suzuki XL7 then yes, I'd be concerned.
Note the Forester is criticized for being a bit small and too short (Impreza got the priority). These are compromises due to the shared platform with the Impreza. At least they were compromises I was willing to take to end up with a sportier vehicle.
Jeff: sorry, didn't fold the 20 part of the seat. It looked like the same seat to me, the only change was the removal of that knob that used to prevent the seat from going all the way back for a 3rd row that didn't exist on the 5 seat models.
Here's a pic of that knob, now present only on the 5+2 models:
But for 3rd row leg room and cargo, CX9 is the best of all midsize SUVs
The Outlook's cargo area is much bigger, by the way, though you might consider that a full-size.
Have you ever compared (and sat inside) a Honda CRV and then sat inside a Honda Civic Coupe ? They are built on the same platform ! The relatively huge space inside a CRV, simply cannot be compared size-wise with that in a petite Civic. Hell, even the larger Accord is way smaller size-wise to the civic-platform-based CRV. So the Impreza/Forester argument is not very valid, since that is how Subaru preferred to implement the platform in the Forester.
Simply sharing a platform does not mean a thing. It is the details and how the platform is finally implemented that matters.
Again, the previous generation Lancer, shared the platform with the ferocious EVO. It just means that the lower-end Lancer platform is excellent, since it formed the basis for the EVO, even though anybody driving the Lancer and then the EVO would never imagine that they are drawn from a common base.
As far as the Caliber is concerned, I would say that it is leaps and bounds above the rest of the Dodge models in the same price range (and even its predecessor the Neon), because it is now sharing components from the Lancer. It does not mean that the components put into the EVO have been cheapened because a Chrysler model happens to draw some of the mechanicals from its lower-end twin. That is reaching to form conclusions, imo.
As an aside, something that is not universally known is that the Chrysler 300, the Dodge Charger etc., are built on the previous generation Mercedes Benz E-class platform.
Agreed 100%.
That's why I said I am merely concerned, and not "I know it's bad".
Specific concerns for me are weight (due to the 3 row requirements) and rigidity (cost limitations placed by the Caliber). Let's see how Mitsu does.
VW/Audi do a great job making platforms flexible, but look at the Audi TT - for it to truly compete with the best they had to break away from the Golf platform.
The 300 uses large portions of the rear suspensions of the last-gen E-class, but I don't think they used the whole platform.
Wow is that city or highway?
I religiously get 13.5mpg driving my Armada in manhattan and anyone who has driven with me, knows that I'm not gentle on the thin pedal. That is HORRIBLE for the CX9 to get less than 3mpg better than the V8 Armada (and I'm running it in AWD mode too)
-mike
The GM Lambdas are bigger, have more displacement, yet they get better mileage. Both use 6 ratio automatics.
And those are 2007 numbers, too, so they will adjust down for MY2008.
-mike
Absolutely true. I think in the future, automakers will get truly good at making flexible platforms, because that offers a compelling competitive advantage, when you can spread the costs of developing a platform, over vehicles in multiple market segments.
I might finally bite the bullet and go for a WRX 4EAT hatch(contingent on how it drives) but frankly I am not too thrilled at what I am getting. Or might order for a Legacy GT wagon, while they are still being made (I especially like the Diamond Grey color). The only saving grace with the WRX is that the TR version is available in the 2008 model year as an EAT (unlike the limited only 2007), which might bring the cost down to the low 20s.
I may have made an error in my observation
I believe that the black door cladding on my 06 Tribeca is the same as the 08.
Since the cladding on the front bumper is more pronounced our eyes are drawn to it making it appear "thicker"
I won't really know until I can put mu car next to an 08.
Charlie