Tribeca Continues to Set Sales Records

[eldiablo]

The fact that the Tribeca falls somewhere in between small / mid-size SUV / crossover segments leaves it in a class to be appreciated by few shoppers.

 

While shopping for a new crossover / small SUV last month I forced my wife to test drive the Tribeca and was embarrassed after doing so. Our vehicle requirements may be a bit more simple than others, but I'm not sure why anyone doing their homework would select a Tribeca over any of the countless small SUVs or crossovers currently out there with a lower sticker price. ???

 

As we ultmiately chose a 2010 Venza, and since we are discussing the Tribeca I'll tell you why the Tribeca fell short in our comparison.

- Venzas fit & finish of interior materials was far superior

- Venzas wider / roomier interior offered much better hip and shoulder room which is important as our family hauler

- Venza is available with a 4 cyl (mated to a 6 speed shiftable automatic) offering 20/28 mpg (vs Tribeca 5 speed 16/21 mpg)

- We appreciated the fresh style of the Venza

- Venza invoice price is almost $4000 less than the Tribeca invoice!!!

 

The only attribute of the Tribeca which was superior to this crossover was the horsepower and torque... but since my wife doesn't care about extra speed, the decision to avoid a Tribeca was easy.

[The B4]

The Tribeca is more of a CX7 competitor.

 

The CX9 is a fill size Suv. The Tribeca us not. There is a reason why the CX9 is 4500lbs with 17cu ft. of storage despite seating 7. It's huge. The modest size of Tribeca leaves only 8.3 cu. ft with a 3rd row, and weighs a lofty 4100lbs.

 

The Tribeca is more akin to a crossover, as is the CX7.

 

I got to drive a new Ford Edge, and new Chevy Equinox. Both left a much bigger impression on me than the Tribeca, which I last drove in early 2009, and walked away feeling uninspired. Inside and out, I found the American endeavors to be more appealing.

 

Man your spelling went off a cliff. The CX-9 is classified as a midsize as is the Tribeca. The CX-7 is classified as a compact. When the Tribeca debuted, it was on the smaller side of the 7 passenger offerings but was inline interior volume wise with the old 7 passenger SUVs. It just wasn't very space efficient just like the previous generation Legacy/Outback, Impreza, and Forester. This became very evident with trying to split the passenger area into 3 rows. All of the vehicles at the time had tight 3rd rows... the Tribeca had more 3rd row room than a pilot, but to get there it made the 2nd row an uncomfortable place to be.

 

The CX-9 and Lambda triplets really pushed the envelope on midsize CUV's and 3rd row room. Since then the Highlander and Pilot have upped their sizes as well. Keep in mind that the Tribeca is Subaru's oldest product at this point. It represents where 7 passenger SUV's were at the time and not where they are now. If it continued I imagine it'd be getting a super size and a general fixing of the Tribeca's current issues. Subaru learned how to better utilize interior space starting with the Impreza. I'm sure they could work wonders with a redone Tribeca sized vehicle. I just don't see FHI re investing in a Tribeca that uses the same formula as the current one.

 

 

Passenger Volume of CUV's at Tribeca's launch:

153.1 Pilot (previous generation)

145.7 Highlander (Previous generation)

144.0 Freestyle

143.3 Pacifica

141.8 Tribeca

109.9 Murano (previous generation)

101.7 CX-7

[The B4]

The fact that the Tribeca falls somewhere in between small / mid-size SUV / crossover segments leaves it in a class to be appreciated by few shoppers.

 

While shopping for a new crossover / small SUV last month I forced my wife to test drive the Tribeca and was embarrassed after doing so. Our vehicle requirements may be a bit more simple than others, but I'm not sure why anyone doing their homework would select a Tribeca over any of the countless small SUVs or crossovers currently out there with a lower sticker price. ???

 

As we ultmiately chose a 2010 Venza, and since we are discussing the Tribeca I'll tell you why the Tribeca fell short in our comparison.

- Venzas fit & finish of interior materials was far superior

- Venzas wider / roomier interior offered much better hip and shoulder room which is important as our family hauler

- Venza is available with a 4 cyl (mated to a 6 speed shiftable automatic) offering 20/28 mpg (vs Tribeca 5 speed 16/21 mpg)

- We appreciated the fresh style of the Venza

- Venza invoice price is almost $4000 less than the Tribeca invoice!!!

 

The only attribute of the Tribeca which was superior to this crossover was the horsepower and torque... but since my wife doesn't care about extra speed, the decision to avoid a Tribeca was easy.

 

A better comparison to a Venza would have been an Outback. It's not like the Tribeca is a new introduction looking to compete with the Venza. The segment has upsized and Tribeca is an old vehicle that would probably do the same thing if it was getting a successor next year. The Tribeca is really at the end of its intended life and would be due to become current Highlander and Pilot sized.

 

- The Outback is $3,000 less comparably equipped

- gets 22/29 vs the Venza's 20/28

- Has a better power/weight ratio 20.96 vs the Venza's 21.67

- Has a smaller turning radius 36.8 to 39.1

- Has better ground clearance at 8.7 to the Venza's 8.1

- Has more front headroom and the same rear headroom

- Has 2.8 inches more front legroom and 1.3 inches less rear legroom

- Has a better towing capacity @ 2700 lbs (H4) vs. the Venza's 1,000 lbs

- Have very similar interior volumes (Outback gives up some passenger volume for cargo volume)

- Outback smaller exterior footprint

- The Venza's biggest measurement advantage is width which translates into greater shoulder room.

 

Passenger + Cargo = Interior Volume:

105.4 + 34.3 = 139.7 Outback

108.0 + 30.7 = 138.7 Venza

 

L x W x H:

188.2 x 71.7 x 63.9 Outback

189.0 x 75.0 x 63.4 Venza

[Viber]

Man your spelling went off a cliff.

 

Was playing with predictive on my phone. Still needs work I see

 

Either way, the Tribeca is far too small to play in the true midsize SUV market

 

It's also far too outdated to compete with the well featured crossovers like the Edge, and Venza despite it having very similar cargo and passenger volume.

 

In theory the Tribeca is a midsize player, but in reality its punching way above its weight, which consumers have clearly realized.

[rao]

Man your spelling went off a cliff. The CX-9 is classified as a midsize as is the Tribeca. The CX-7 is classified as a compact. When the Tribeca debuted, it was on the smaller side of the 7 passenger offerings but was inline interior volume wise with the old 7 passenger SUVs. It just wasn't very space efficient just like the previous generation Legacy/Outback, Impreza, and Forester. This became very evident with trying to split the passenger area into 3 rows. All of the vehicles at the time had tight 3rd rows... the Tribeca had more 3rd row room than a pilot, but to get there it made the 2nd row an uncomfortable place to be.

 

The CX-9 and Lambda triplets really pushed the envelope on midsize CUV's and 3rd row room. Since then the Highlander and Pilot have upped their sizes as well. Keep in mind that the Tribeca is Subaru's oldest product at this point. It represents where 7 passenger SUV's were at the time and not where they are now. If it continued I imagine it'd be getting a super size and a general fixing of the Tribeca's current issues. Subaru learned how to better utilize interior space starting with the Impreza. I'm sure they could work wonders with a redone Tribeca sized vehicle. I just don't see FHI re investing in a Tribeca that uses the same formula as the current one.

 

 

Passenger Volume of CUV's at Tribeca's launch:

153.1 Pilot (previous generation)

145.7 Highlander (Previous generation)

144.0 Freestyle

143.3 Pacifica

141.8 Tribeca

109.9 Murano (previous generation)

101.7 CX-7

 

 

We all get it - the public is stupid and doesn't see the brilliance of the Tribeca; fortunately they do see the brilliance of the new Legacy and Outback at least for now.

[TSiWRX]

We all get it - the public is stupid and doesn't see the brilliance of the Tribeca; fortunately they do see the brilliance of the new Legacy and Outback at least for now.

 

^ Exactly.

 

It seems like the Tribeca formula just didn't appeal - it's just a miss.

 

I know you're tongue-and-cheek , but I truly don't believe that the Tribeca is at all "brilliant," nor the buying public all that dumb . To me, this is just a case of the Tribeca "missing," period.

 

Subaru learned how to better utilize interior space starting with the Impreza. I'm sure they could work wonders with a redone Tribeca sized vehicle. I just don't see FHI re investing in a Tribeca that uses the same formula as the current one.

 

^ I certainly hope so, for as our needs continue to change, we may all too well wind up with a Tribeca in our garage.

[rao]

I am very serious - although I can't confirm that.

[TSiWRX]

^

[eldiablo]

A better comparison to a Venza would have been an Outback. It's not like the Tribeca is a new introduction looking to compete with the Venza. The segment has upsized and Tribeca is an old vehicle that would probably do the same thing if it was getting a successor next year. The Tribeca is really at the end of its intended life and would be due to become current Highlander and Pilot sized.

 

- The Outback is $3,000 less comparably equipped

- gets 22/29 vs the Venza's 20/28

- Has a better power/weight ratio 20.96 vs the Venza's 21.67

- Has a smaller turning radius 36.8 to 39.1

- Has better ground clearance at 8.7 to the Venza's 8.1

- Has more front headroom and the same rear headroom

- Has 2.8 inches more front legroom and 1.3 inches less rear legroom

- Has a better towing capacity @ 2700 lbs (H4) vs. the Venza's 1,000 lbs

- Have very similar interior volumes (Outback gives up some passenger volume for cargo volume)

- Outback smaller exterior footprint

- The Venza's biggest measurement advantage is width which translates into greater shoulder room.

 

Passenger + Cargo = Interior Volume:

105.4 + 34.3 = 139.7 Outback

108.0 + 30.7 = 138.7 Venza

 

L x W x H:

188.2 x 71.7 x 63.9 Outback

189.0 x 75.0 x 63.4 Venza

 

Not sure where you get your data from. The Venza comes equipped similar to a Limited Outback which invoices at $1200 more than the Venza. We never really considered the Outback as it's styling does not appeal to us.

 

BTW, your Outback height data and Venza towing capacity are incorrect. Venza tow cap = 2500lbs and Outback height = 65.7 but who really cares anyway.

[The B4]

Not sure where you get your data from. The Venza comes equipped similar to a Limited Outback which invoices at $1200 more than the Venza. We never really considered the Outback as it's styling does not appeal to us.

 

BTW, your Outback height data and Venza towing capacity are incorrect. Venza tow cap = 2500lbs and Outback height = 65.7 but who really cares anyway.

 

Regardless of if it didn't appeal to you, the point remains that the Outback is still more of a competitor to the Venza than a Tribeca is.

 

An H4 Limited Outback is $28,690 MSRP Including Destination and $26, 965 invoice

A base AWD Venza is $28, 475. This does not include heated seats or leather

 

4 Cylinder Venza's towing is 1,000 lbs and takes the $220 tow prep package to tow 2,500 lbs. The Outback does that and more out of the box.

 

Outback:

$28,690 MSRP / $26,965 Invoice

 

Venza:

$2,100 Leather Package

$1,090 JBL Package (Outback Limited has Harmon Kardon Standard)

$220 Tow Package

$31,885 MSRP / $28,514 Invoice

 

 

The height measurement is roof to roof. The Outback is 65.7 with roof rails The Venza doesn't have standard roof rails but would probably be similar with whatever additional racking system you have to buy.

[eldiablo]

Not disagreeing with your point. The fact that the Venza competes with the Outback is another reason that the Tribeca won't sell until Subaru gets around to that refresh.

 

Outback and Venza both offer comparable cargo space to the Tribeca, similar interior volumes and still cost thousands less.

[The B4]

Wagons, whether in CUV form or car form, are usually smarter choices than their SUV alternatives, yet some people just won't go for that wagon look.

 

I agree with you nonetheless. The Tribeca wasn't space efficient when it came out, but now it's just plain too small.

[jagcars26]

I am very serious - although I can't confirm that.

 

rao,,

Ya know some of the noobs here may take you seriously.

Annnnd,,I can't confirm that as well

[pillboy]

I believe in the gospel according to rao.

[rock2534]

I guess I must not see the criticisms about it, I like our 09 just fine. But to be fair it was all a function of price, it was a demo with 5k miles on it, sticker was 41k, they had it marked down to 35k, we got it for 30k. Its like a stock I guess, hated it at 41, somewhat liked it at 35, loved it at 30. Only thing i wished it had was the bluetooth that the 2010 has.

[SLegacy99]

Speak of the devil. New Ford Edge with 2.0L Ecoboost, 3.5, and 3.7L powertrains debuted today. Turbo for me please.

[The B4]

That's a great refresh on the Edge.

[Spec B 127]

Weird. My local Subaru dealer (Michael Hohl in Carson City, NV). has a lot full of Legacies. Hardly any (if any) GT's though.

[IwannaSportSedan]

of course they don't.

 

Subaru of America doesn't want to push the Legacy GT.

 

Dealers abhor vehicles that sit on the lot more than the minimum amount of time possible, if they can help it, no matter if some of the more niche vehicles might sell, but not quite as quickly as others...

 

and Customers by and large buy cars with automatic gearboxes, which the Legacy GT no longer offers.

 

If you happen to want something like an AWD sport sedan with a manual transmission, and happen not to be a mainstream buyer, you are one of a few that most companies would rather not have to deal with pleasing. They won't have one in stock, and won't be interested in getting one in stock, because if you decline due to having multiple irons in the fire with other vendors, they feel like they get "stuck" with it, and that refers back to reason number two.

 

Subaru wanted a way to pitch the new 2010 Legacy as being sportier than the Camry or Accord, to have that little edge over them. The mere existence of the GT model creates those talking points. Once the new push marketing campaign is over, which it seems to be winding down... SOA will have the two things that they want.

 

1: they want to be rid of the "complexity" of having three powertrains for the Legacy line.

 

2: they want the sales stats to justify to SOJ/FHI that nobody in the US wants a Legacy GT, so that they can justify #1.

 

Having the car available for lip service for 2010 doesn't necessitate that it is in stock at dealerships. Cars that are not in stock do not sell.

 

Because along with manual transmissions that are easier to get in and just drive... buying a dealer stocked car is easier to just point at and buy. No hassles, no waiting. Instant gratification. American buyers are portrayed as stupid, but I think they are just simply more interested in "easy." Decades of honing the shopping instinct in our economy, being switched from a production economy to a consumerist economy has that effect.

 

Convenience is very appealing, even to people who know a thing or two, and extremely appealing to those who don't know a lot about the topic, and just want to be in and out of a car dealership as fast as possible, and then drive their convenient and reliable new car.

[SLegacy99]

I'd be interested to know the breakdown of LGT, 2.5i, and 3.6R sales. 2.5i auto vs. 2.5i manual would be interesting as well.

[The B4]

SOA can decide to not carry a trim if they don't want it. It's as simple as that. The Legacy GT is manual only in the US as a marketing/positioning tactic. It was not used for a sporty image at all with the 2010. It's not featured in any print advertising, and the one commercial it was show in was very mundane. Unfortunately, the general populous wants 6 cylinders over turbos. That's the very reason why the TSX comes with t V6 instead of the RDX's engine which would have made a lot of sport sedan enthusiast cream their pants.

[IwannaSportSedan]

Well, since so many people have had their turbos shell out and send metal into the engine block... and as smooth as my EG33 H6 is... I am starting to join them in their preference for an H6, before my turbo legacy joins the statistics.

 

My turbo Legacy is quicker than my H6, no doubt. But an engine and turbo replacement is a lot of money, and an H6 isn't that slow. I am starting to turn my opinion on the EJ25 turbo engine to be a fantastic engine for a weekend sporty car, but too expensive and potentially dangerous to itself to rely on in a car that is expected to run every day without fail, for more than 100,000 miles, under just regular maintenance. 05-06 Legacy GT Turbos failing due to oiling failure between 60 and 100K, when the oil change schedule is abided by, and then within 200 miles later, the engines lose compression due to bore damage from the turbo shards, is not good. Others have problems with broken ring lands, and other reliability problems, that can hurt the reputation of turbocharged engines, Subaru's specifically.

 

If only they would offer ANY car with an H6 and a manual gearbox in the same damn car. SOJ supplies them to other markets, but SOA will not sell one here. Heaven forbid that the 3.0R Limited BL Legacys had offered the 6MT and rear diff from the Spec B as an option... Oh, wait, they did offer that everywhere else.

 

So, mr. all-knowing-but-won't-say, what marketing tactic, other than trying to statistically justify the demise of the Legacy GT, would it be to not offer the Legacy GT with an automatic, which would make it more widely appealing? You say it is a tactic. You refuse, or simply cannot identify the strategy that that tactic serves.

 

If the Turbo Legacy with manual transmission "was not used for a sporty image at all with the 2010" YOUR WORDS, then what the hell IS the point of offering it for 2010?

 

With no automatic and no dealer stock, it sure as hell isn't a sales leader.

 

You dispute people, but hardly ever do you offer alternate reasoning that makes any strategic sense. Or is that one of your other "secrets" that you'll allude to, but not actually reveal?

[The B4]

 

If the Turbo Legacy with manual transmission "was not used for a sporty image at all with the 2010" YOUR WORDS, then what the hell IS the point of offering it for 2010?

 

how many adverts have you seen showing the 2010 as sporty while using the words or imagery of the 2010 LGT? The 2010 GT wasn't created for marketing purposes. It went manual only to differentiate itself from the H6.

 

You dispute people, but hardly ever do you offer alternate reasoning that makes any strategic sense. Or is that one of your other "secrets" that you'll allude to, but not actually reveal?

 

your arguments are so straw man they are often ludicrous. I don't think it's possible to ground you in reality. For that reason I don't waste the time I would have once upon a time.

[VTGT]

Speak of the devil. New Ford Edge with 2.0L Ecoboost, 3.5, and 3.7L powertrains debuted today. Turbo for me please.

 

Yeah it looks decent. I am assuming that is only for the 2011 model which will not come out until the fall though, bummer for me cause I need a new car.

[IwannaSportSedan]

how many adverts have you seen showing the 2010 as sporty while using the words or imagery of the 2010 LGT? The 2010 GT wasn't created for marketing purposes. It went manual only to differentiate itself from the H6.

 

To differentiate itself? A GEARBOX DOESN'T DIFFERENTIATE AN ENGINE. The 2.5 Turbo differentiates the GT from the 3.6R's .... gee.. wait for it.... 3.6 H6!

 

If both you and SOA are stupid enough to believe that, then SOA's decision reasoning capability is worse than I thought.

 

Let me guess. You guys think that interior color differentiates paint color, too, right? :spin:

 

The 2005-2009 Legacy GT and GT Limited were available with an automatic gearbox. Spec B was limited to MT, but it was not the only turbo legacy trim level then. You could still get a 2.5GT Limited/5EAT. As well they should. approximately 90% of american car buyers BUY AUTOMATIC GEARBOXES.

 

It is stupidity to limit appeal to the 2010 Legacy 2.5GT, by denying the gearbox format that 90% of buyers prefer, if you actually want to sell both 2.5GTs and 3.6R models.

 

The only reason that bears any logic at all to deny the GT an automatic gearbox, is to PUSH that 90% of buyers away from the GT model, likely TO the 3.6R.

 

your arguments are so straw man they are often ludicrous. I don't think it's possible to ground you in reality. For that reason I don't waste the time I would have once upon a time.

 

No, my arguments are not straw man arguments. They are my opinions of as to what might explain what Subaru is doing.

 

Because we are hearing NOTHING from Subaru to otherwise explain it, there is nothing to do but speculate. And my speculation fits the facts, which you cannot refute, so you throw out a cop-out clause like "wasting time."