Need advice: Subaru Tribeca vs. RDX vs. CR-V

[smartcdn]

everyone - post what you think.

[vek]

I have an RDX. Its been a disappointment. The turbo lag is annoying, the gas mileage is beyond horrible, and I curse myself for getting a car that requires premium fuel.

The CRV is a little underpowered, but a decent little SUV.

If I was to do it again, I'd import a Tribeca or get one from Multiline.

[B0000rt]

Where's the RAV4 in this comparison?

Available V6 for that thing? :D 3rd row seating option for kids? :D

My only complaint is cheap interior.

[mau108]

I wouldn't say the rdx is a big disappointment. Yes the fuel economy sucks balls for a car of its size and it is missing some stuff you can find on cars similarily priced.

But overall I like the car (own one).

Definately take the RDX and Tribeca for a spin.

On paper thoe RDX owns the Tribeca in almost every way (weight, torque, with a 500 dollar flash in hp as well :P, looks, fuel economy) but the rdx is missing alot of features that should be standard on all "higher end" vehicles.

Such as passenger power seats, auto dimming rear view (I heard the 08 got it standard), heated steering wheel, memory seats.

[rays101]

Make sure you test drive ALL the vehicles you are considering.

I test drove an RDX earlier this year. On paper, it sounded like the perfect vehicle for me and when researching, this was initially my number one choice. The RDX is a sporty car so it has a stiff suspension (which some people like). I was driving a BMW 330 at the time and the RDX is MUCH stiffer ride, but the benefit is good handling for an SUV. Also, for a luxury vehicle it has a reasonable amount of wind noise on the highway. My wife and I both looked at each other when I was on the highway as we were surprised by the amount of wind noise. The RDX did have a modern and very nice interior and included a lot of excellent features esp. with the tehnology package. If they had a less stiff suspension and quieter ride, I would have bought it. But others love the handling and don't mind the stiffness so try it out.

My brother test drove the CRV and also mentioned it was stiff. He and his wife were nauseated by the end of the test drive. This did get very good safety rating. One concern is 4 cylinder engine if you want power.

I also test drove the RAV4 V6. Definitely has worse handling but softer ride than the RDX but this car really moves in a straight line with its powerful V6 (same engine as in the lexus rx350) but as someone mentioned, the interior even on the top of the line model is several levels below RDX and is not luxurious at all. I also hated that this had a back swinging door with tire on it which opened into traffic if you are parallel parking.

I haven't test drived the tribeca.

It ultimately depends on what you want... luxury, handling, sportiness, power, quietness and which you value more than the others. One person's choice is not the same as another.

[nolimtzel]

where is the x3?

[chickenbones]

Tribeca is more or an MDX sized SUV not a RDX small SUV. Totally different cars for different purpose.

RDX = Sports "Sedan" with elevated seating. Tribeca = Family SUV with 7 seats.

X3 is more of a RDX competitor than the rest of the SUVs you listed. Between RDX & X3 I would pick the X3, except X3's looks.

[leung_jai]

CR-V is not even in the same grade as RDX and tribeca...u could prolly get another 10k secondary car if u end up with the CR-V.

Tribeca will be my choice since its the only one that offers FULL TIME REAL AWD along with ESP . In theory it should be on of the safest vechicle drivetrain combination. Not to mention it has one of the BEST DESIGNED interior, sthg like a plane's cockpit. Also this ride is kinda rare if u want a lil bit of individuality. The RDX and CRV are all over the street.

[smartcdn]

thanks to all so far...

yes, i guess i could include the RAV4 V6.

the only problem - and this could change - is the pricing rebates.

RAV4's only get $2,000 rebates, right?

CR-V's get $4,000 rebates (so around $35,000 for Navi version)

RDX's get $3,000-$4,000 rebates (so around $39,000)

Tribeca's get $8,000 rebates (so around $35,000)

For the tribeca, i am not looking at the 7-seater, just 5 seater

[Azxster]

The RDX is pricey... you could save up and get the MDX.

I'd go for the V6 RAV4.

[new_vr]

CR-V is not even in the same grade as RDX and tribeca...u could prolly get another 10k secondary car if u end up with the CR-V.

Tribeca will be my choice since its the only one that offers FULL TIME REAL AWD along with ESP . In theory it should be on of the safest vechicle drivetrain combination. Not to mention it has one of the BEST DESIGNED interior, sthg like a plane's cockpit. Also this ride is kinda rare if u want a lil bit of individuality. The RDX and CRV are all over the street.

Since you highlighted the FULL TIME REAL AWD along with ESP I am interested in knowing how it's better then Acura's SH-AWD?

[bionicbadger]

For the tribeca, i am not looking at the 7-seater, just 5 seater

3rd row seating in the tribeca is a joke. Only younger kids can sit back there for any trip longer than 10 minutes, and they are the least safe seats so you probably wouldn't want to stick your kids back there. The only reason to get the 7 seater is for the rear air-conditioning, but thats not worth the extra $ from the 5 seater.

[B0000rt]

We should go back to the start, what's your price range? $35-39k?
*$8,000 cash credit offer is for cash customers only and is available on 2008 Legacy 2.5GT Sedan 8A1GT/8A2GTV and Wagon 8B1GT/8B2GT, 2008 Outback 2.5XT/3.0R models and 2008 Tribeca 8S2CC

Hmm is the base model the 8S2CC stock code?

Imo, the CRV front looks too ugly to even consider it.. (Unless you get Black)

[ygtgxi]

get a subaru tribeca from van bortel! I wish I have the money to even consider a brand new sparkling car

lucky you

[redflower]

You may want to consider the Nissan Rogue also. It's in the same class as the others you mentioned.

[bionicbadger]

You may want to consider the Nissan Rogue also. It's in the same class as the others you mentioned.

The rogue is smaller than the CRV and Rav4. The Murano is more similar to a Tribeca/RDX.


OP what are using the vehicle for? Daily work/grocery getter? Long highway drives? Weekend camping/trailer pulling?

[mau108]

If you do go nissan, check out the pathfinder and the pathfinder only. I don't like the other suv's nissan has put out.

[sil]

If you do go nissan, check out the pathfinder and the pathfinder only. I don't like the other suv's nissan has put out.

don't forget the hyundai santa fe and tucson

[KawaiiTentacleBeast]

For that amount of money you can get a 2004 Cayenne in the US. New cars are for girls.

[bluestreetlight]

Also CX-7 is in the range of RDX and CR-V.

[smartcdn]

The rogue is smaller than the CRV and Rav4. The Murano is more similar to a Tribeca/RDX.


OP what are using the vehicle for? Daily work/grocery getter? Long highway drives? Weekend camping/trailer pulling?

I had been waiting for the Nissan Rogue since April this year but its safety rating wasn't as good as the other ones metnioned here.

I am using the vehicle for 70% highway driving and about 30% city driving. It is this reason that I am ok with the RDX and Tribeca's V6.

I do like to save on gas, but with my mix of driving, I will be closer to their highway L/100km ratings.

Rough figures are about:
7.x/10.x for CRV (similar for RAV4, a bit higher for RAV4 V6 versions)
9.x/12.x for RDX
10.x/13.x/ for Tribeca.


With my 3 choices,

[smartcdn]

Also CX-7 is in the range of RDX and CR-V.

Thanks for the info. Does anyone know if Mazda is offering big rebates on this?

[bluestreetlight]

Thanks for the info. Does anyone know if Mazda is offering big rebates on this?

Not sure about the current rebate, but you may check with Jeff-TheBiz for Mazda info.

BTW, the actual fuel consumption rate of my CX-7 is 14L/100KM, 85% highway and 15% city, premium only.

[baboo]

I had been waiting for the Nissan Rogue since April this year but its safety rating wasn't as good as the other ones metnioned here.

I am using the vehicle for 70% highway driving and about 30% city driving. It is this reason that I am ok with the RDX and Tribeca's V6.

I do like to save on gas, but with my mix of driving, I will be closer to their highway L/100km ratings.

Rough figures are about:
7.x/10.x for CRV (similar for RAV4, a bit higher for RAV4 V6 versions)
9.x/12.x for RDX
10.x/13.x/ for Tribeca.


With my 3 choices,

I drive a tribeca now. I do 70% city and 30% highway driving, and since I have a heavy foot on gas, I get about 14 L/100km. Not a very good number, but being able to use regular gas help a bit.

The interior is very nice, but smaller than it should be. 3rd row seating is a joke, just like another poster said.

AWD is awesome, had no problem on Sunday. I felt totally in control and very safe in the vehicle at all time.

Never drove RDX before, so I can't comment.

I don't think CR-V is in the same league as the RDX or Tribeca.

Overall, I am very happy with the Tribeca.

PS. Tribeca has a H6 engine, not V6..

[smartcdn]

I drive a tribeca now. I do 70% city and 30% highway driving, and since I have a heavy foot on gas, I get about 14 L/100km. Not a very good number, but being able to use regular gas help a bit.

The interior is very nice, but smaller than it should be. 3rd row seating is a joke, just like another poster said.

AWD is awesome, had no problem on Sunday. I felt totally in control and very safe in the vehicle at all time.

Never drove RDX before, so I can't comment.

I don't think CR-V is in the same league as the RDX or Tribeca.

Overall, I am very happy with the Tribeca.

PS. Tribeca has a H6 engine, not V6..

Wow - you do the same mix of hwy/city driving as me! But i get the point.

How is an H6 different (better/worse) than a V6? anyone? did you get yours during the great promotion or before it? or did you buy in the US?

[KawaiiTentacleBeast]

V6:

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/engine-v-6.gif

Boxer engine (Pic is a flat-4, flat 6 is same just add another pair of cylinders)

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/engine-flat-4.gif

Boxer engines are flat and can be placed lower in the car, lowering the CoG, but is awkward to position if you want to maximize interior space. A Flat-6 engine is also inherently balanced for 1st and 2nd order vibration, although this isn't really much of a concern for an everyday car.

[Azxster]

How does gravity affect a boxer engine? Will it experience more wear/tear on the bottom of the cylinder walls?

[KawaiiTentacleBeast]

I don't believe it's significant. Cylinder walls experience temperatures of over 1000 degrees after all.

[BradT]

Are you using the turbo a lot and/or what is the speed you normally drive on the highway? I am pretty close to getting an '08.

Not sure about the current rebate, but you may check with Jeff-TheBiz for Mazda info.

BTW, the actual fuel consumption rate of my CX-7 is 14L/100KM, 85% highway and 15% city, premium only.

[baboo]

Wow - you do the same mix of hwy/city driving as me! But i get the point.

How is an H6 different (better/worse) than a V6? anyone? did you get yours during the great promotion or before it? or did you buy in the US?

Actually, I do 70% city and 30% highway, I think you mentioned you do 30% city and 70% highway, so take my number as worst scenario...

Yeah, one of the most obvious advantage of H engine is the lower CoG, however, it is a family oriented SUV afterall, you are not going to corner at 100km/h...;) Subaru's website has a big section about horizontal opposed engine, its pretty informative.

I bought my tribeca from the US, just imported few weeks ago.

[Illidan]

Recommend against the RDX.

What the RDX emphasizes miss the boat for most potential buyers.

You are looking for an SUV, so handling and performance should not be the very FIRST priority (key word is FIRST; note that these are important factors in choosing a car for most people, but just not the FIRST priority when you're choosing an SUV). If you want handling and performance you get a 2-door sports car, or even a sport sedan, or for a spacious 5-seater, go for a sprot wagon like the RS6.

In this case, RDX is the best handler and has the best performance (on paper) amongst its competitors; but is that what someone like you is looking for? Are you taking your RDX to autocross? What it NEEDS to excel in, the RDX does not. For example - a) fuel economy sucks, which nowadays everyone cares about - with premium required to boot, you are spending a lot of gas money on the RDX. b) AWD capability - okay, no doubt SH-AWD is an incredible system, for sports cars, and sports sedans. But anyone who understands the physics behind SH-AWD or knows anything about the history of AWD and 4WD systems will know that for utility vehicles, Subaru has the best AWD system for street use, and Jeep has the best 4WD system for other uses. SH-AWD was not designed for an SUV - on the RDX, it's more of a gimmick to sell a "superior" system over others. And because SH-AWD "handles" so well, your ride comfort is down the drain (understandable for sports cars, but for an SUV? I would say comfort is quite important for a family car). c) Space - the interior space of the RDX is terrible to even be called an SUV. d) Reliability - when was the last time Honda made a turbo engine for a consumer car in North America? e) Price - it's pricey but it does not offer more standard features over its competitors. f) Sound deadening - sit in an X3, ML, RX, for a 407 ride and go back into an RDX, or even an MDX, and you'll see Acura doesn't care about wind noise (ever wonder why Acura cars always weigh less than its competitors?)

In summary, RDX is by definition a good car because of its different features and potential, but as an overall package, I would say that it has missed the boat for most and it will be hard to find someone who sees the RDX as a perfect fit for their lifestyle and usage.

[KawaiiTentacleBeast]

Or just buy the RS6. Twin Turbo Gallardo V10 == who cares about anything else.

[mau108]

Recommend against the RDX.

What the RDX emphasizes miss the boat for most potential buyers.

You are looking for an SUV, so handling and performance should not be the very FIRST priority (key word is FIRST; note that these are important factors in choosing a car for most people, but just not the FIRST priority when you're choosing an SUV). If you want handling and performance you get a 2-door sports car, or even a sport sedan, or for a spacious 5-seater, go for a sprot wagon like the RS6.

In this case, RDX is the best handler and has the best performance (on paper) amongst its competitors; but is that what someone like you is looking for? Are you taking your RDX to autocross? What it NEEDS to excel in, the RDX does not. For example - a) fuel economy sucks, which nowadays everyone cares about - with premium required to boot, you are spending a lot of gas money on the RDX. b) AWD capability - okay, no doubt SH-AWD is an incredible system, for sports cars, and sports sedans. But anyone who understands the physics behind SH-AWD or knows anything about the history of AWD and 4WD systems will know that for utility vehicles, Subaru has the best AWD system for street use, and Jeep has the best 4WD system for other uses. SH-AWD was not designed for an SUV - on the RDX, it's more of a gimmick to sell a "superior" system over others. And because SH-AWD "handles" so well, your ride comfort is down the drain (understandable for sports cars, but for an SUV? I would say comfort is quite important for a family car). c) Space - the interior space of the RDX is terrible to even be called an SUV. d) Reliability - when was the last time Honda made a turbo engine for a consumer car in North America? e) Price - it's pricey but it does not offer more standard features over its competitors. f) Sound deadening - sit in an X3, ML, RX, for a 407 ride and go back into an RDX, or even an MDX, and you'll see Acura doesn't care about wind noise (ever wonder why Acura cars always weigh less than its competitors?)

In summary, RDX is by definition a good car because of its different features and potential, but as an overall package, I would say that it has missed the boat for most and it will be hard to find someone who sees the RDX as a perfect fit for their lifestyle and usage.


I'm sorry but I find it perfect for my lifestyle. I've used it this past weekend during the snow storm and it drove perfectly. The VSA coupled with the SH-AWD system really does superb driving through the snow (I only have all seasons on it btw).

Fuel economy does suck but compare that to a Tribeca, on paper tribeca does worse (I don't know the real life numbers, if anyone has it please post). Ride comfort, I heard for the 08's Acura threw on softer suspensions, some don't like that they did that and preferred the 07's stiffer suspension but I feel it could be softer. But its no where near as stiff and pain in the ass as the Infinity FX (fx 45 with I believe 19's or 20's).

Price wise, ya your paying a lot here but down south Acura isn't considered in the same class as BMW or Benz so the pricing in the US is quite good (you save about 10 grand from what I remember).

I agree the Scoobies AWD system is top class but in snow I don't think the AWD system is what matters but rather does the car have VSA, ESP or what ever you want to call it.

It's been proven by fifth gear (uk tv show) that the AWD system does not matter (although does help a bit not much thoe) the stability and traction control system is what helps a car climb a hill of ice, snow and what not. The show showed a jag ( I believe was only FWD) but it went through a bunch of testing with esp off and on and it was astonishing how much this system can save lifes and get you out of stick situations.

[Illidan]

I'm sorry but I find it perfect for my lifestyle. I've used it this past weekend during the snow storm and it drove perfectly. The VSA coupled with the SH-AWD system really does superb driving through the snow (I only have all seasons on it btw).

Fuel economy does suck but compare that to a Tribeca, on paper tribeca does worse (I don't know the real life numbers, if anyone has it please post). Ride comfort, I heard for the 08's Acura threw on softer suspensions, some don't like that they did that and preferred the 07's stiffer suspension but I feel it could be softer. But its no where near as stiff and pain in the ass as the Infinity FX (fx 45 with I believe 19's or 20's).

Price wise, ya your paying a lot here but down south Acura isn't considered in the same class as BMW or Benz so the pricing in the US is quite good (you save about 10 grand from what I remember).

I agree the Scoobies AWD system is top class but in snow I don't think the AWD system is what matters but rather does the car have VSA, ESP or what ever you want to call it.

It's been proven by fifth gear (uk tv show) that the AWD system does not matter (although does help a bit not much thoe) the stability and traction control system is what helps a car climb a hill of ice, snow and what not. The show showed a jag ( I believe was only FWD) but it went through a bunch of testing with esp off and on and it was astonishing how much this system can save lifes and get you out of stick situations.

When I spoke about the AWD system I wasn't referring to traction - I was referring to the vehicle's capability (i.e. "handling" if you will, but for SUV). Cars without any type of AWD system can have good traction too, as you have mentioned; it can be largely mitigated by a good traction control system. I was referring to things such as reacting to heavier loads, towing, etc. (what a SUV is meant to do).

In terms of fuel, the subies, on paper, consumes more, but uses regular gas - assuming the energuide EPA figures are correct, RDX gas cost will definitely be higher, as it demands 91.

In terms of price, yes if you go to the U.S. it will be cheaper but that's the same for almost every car.

[new_vr]

In terms of fuel, the subies, on paper, consumes more, but uses regular gas - assuming the energuide EPA figures are correct, RDX gas cost will definitely be higher, as it demands 91.

According to fueleconomy.gov, when I plugged in the values for reg and premium fuel, the difference in fuel cost per was around 3%. If you can afford either of these vehicles, I don't think an extra $100 one way or the other per year is going to be a deal breaker

[Illidan]

According to fueleconomy.gov, when I plugged in the values for reg and premium fuel, the difference in fuel cost per was around 3%. If you can afford either of these vehicles, I don't think an extra $100 one way or the other per year is going to be a deal breaker

It's not - and never said was a deal breaker. It was just an example from a set of points regarding the entire purchase decision, per my original response.

[totech]

Subie has VDC, VTD and 4 wheel traction control and stability system.

There is no doubt that it is a superior system to the one that they initially (FHI) delivered to Honda for the first CRV. Likely Honda has made improvements, but it is not their primary focus.

Subaru focuses safety and reliability over flashiness and looks, AWD on all their models.

Most AWD systems are reactive, Subaru's is proactive, constantly monitoring wheels and delivering stability when needed.

Drive them, you will see.

Tribeca gets my nod, and the regular over premium fuel is just icing on the cake.

[bionicbadger]

It's been proven by fifth gear (uk tv show) that the AWD system does not matter (although does help a bit not much thoe) the stability and traction control system is what helps a car climb a hill of ice, snow and what not. The show showed a jag ( I believe was only FWD) but it went through a bunch of testing with esp off and on and it was astonishing how much this system can save lifes and get you out of stick situations.

Here is a subaru AWD propaganda vid, showing tests comparing AWD systems. (Of course they don't show any Audis)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4999142340359932162

But anyone who understands the physics behind SH-AWD or knows anything about the history of AWD and 4WD systems will know that for utility vehicles, Subaru has the best AWD system for street use, and Jeep has the best 4WD system for other uses.
Audi's quattro AWD is at least as good if not better than Subaru's (and I own a Subaru)

[ac328]

According to fueleconomy.gov, when I plugged in the values for reg and premium fuel, the difference in fuel cost per was around 3%. If you can afford either of these vehicles, I don't think an extra $100 one way or the other per year is going to be a deal breaker

Well if you want to be nitpicky the difference in Canada is about 10 cents/litre. Assuming driving 20,000km a year and a 10l/100km fuel consumption average, that works out to $200 a year. Closer to $300 a year if you assume a 12l/100km average and 24,000km a year.

But I agree, that difference should mean nothing if you can afford to buy/lease a $40,000+ SUV.

[Illidan]

Audi's quattro AWD is at least as good if not better than Subaru's (and I own a Subaru)

Agreed. The reason why I excluded Quattro from my comments was because it is almost an entirely different system from a mechanical point of view. The way it is derived is also very different from the rest, the most obvious being that it is a front-wheel-drive based AWD system.

[Illidan]

Well if you want to be nitpicky the difference in Canada is about 10 cents/litre. Assuming driving 20,000km a year and a 10l/100km fuel consumption average, that works out to $200 a year. Closer to $300 a year if you assume a 12l/100km average and 24,000km a year.

But I agree, that difference should mean nothing if you can afford to buy/lease a $40,000+ SUV.

LOL math wiz here. Good calculation.

In any case, the point originally made was part of a set of points, so this in itself by no means is a critical factor. But just as another poster said, it is more of an icing on the cake type of observation from a critical analysis point of view.

[new_vr]

Well if you want to be nitpicky the difference in Canada is about 10 cents/litre. Assuming driving 20,000km a year and a 10l/100km fuel consumption average, that works out to $200 a year. Closer to $300 a year if you assume a 12l/100km average and 24,000km a year.

But I agree, that difference should mean nothing if you can afford to buy/lease a $40,000+ SUV.

I plugged in $1.00 a liter, for reg, and 1.10 for premium. I put annual mileage to be 20K per year. The numbers fueleconomy.gov gave were $2614(tribecca) vs $2724 (RDX)
A bigger financial consideration would actually be depreciation. As somoene who has been looking at used subaru's lately, I can confidently say they don't hold their value that well.

[ac328]

Agreed. The reason why I excluded Quattro from my comments was because it is almost an entirely different system from a mechanical point of view. The way it is derived is also very different from the rest, the most obvious being that it is a front-wheel-drive based AWD system.

Audi's quattro AWD isn't FWD based. Their system feeds power through a TORSEN centre diff that splits power F/R 50/50, and can allocate torque based on slippage to whichever end has grip. On the "S" and "RS" models this torque split has been altered to 40/60 F/R for more RWD type handling characteristics. It is a "permanent" AWD system like Subaru's (not like Honda's system in the CR-V).

Audis have very FWD driving characteristics because they are very nose heavy, with their engines at or in front of the front axle line. This has been partly fixed in the new A5/S5, since Audi has moved the placement of the engines rearward.

Of course, in the R8 Audi moved the engined waaayyy back :cheesygri .

[Illidan]

Audi's quattro AWD isn't FWD based. Their system feeds power through a TORSEN centre diff that splits power F/R 50/50, and can allocate torque based on slippage to whichever end has grip. On the "S" and "RS" models this torque split has been altered to 40/60 F/R for more RWD type handling characteristics. It is a "permanent" AWD system like Subaru's (not like Honda's system in the CR-V).

Audis have very FWD driving characteristics because they are very nose heavy, with their engines at or in front of the front axle line. This has been partly fixed in the new A5/S5, since Audi has moved the placement of the engines rearward.

Of course, in the R8 Audi moved the engined waaayyy back :cheesygri .

You misunderstood my point. I wasn't referring to how it works mechanically, but rather, how it was derived. Quattro was orginally derived from a FWD-based drive system.

[KawaiiTentacleBeast]

As opposed to the RWD derived Subaru system? :lol:

I think you need to stop while you're ahead.

[ac328]

For a good comparison of three-row SUVs see the latest issue of Consumer Reports, January 2008 (I think).

They thought the Tribeca was good but not great; handling was very good but both the 2nd and 3rd row were very tight, limiting its usefulness. Also the Tribeca is very thirsty on gas. They complimented the 2008 engine upgrade.

They liked the new Highlander (surprise, surprise), but they also thought the Highlander's 3rd row was very tight. Otherwise it is refined and drinks less gas than the Tribeca.

Check out the video reviews here:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/past-road-test/three-row-suvs-1-08/videos-three-row-suvs/small-suvs-video.htm

[Illidan]

As opposed to the RWD derived Subaru system? :lol:

I think you need to stop while you're ahead.

lol - you seem to be able to make similar comments in every thread, but has no knowledge to back it up. Was going to ignore you but I feel like I owe you one last try.

If you know what kind of coupling quattro uses to begin with back in the days of starting with the audi coupe and the evolution through the 4 generations of the system, you will know that it was derived based on a front drive system. Even in this era, when inactive (non-triggered state), the system loads the front wheels and not only until some recent models where a transfer of >50% power is possible to be channeled to the rear wheels.

[KawaiiTentacleBeast]

O Rly? Tell me more about this "front drive system" with its' "inactive state".

[KevC]

We're also looking for a "cute"ute to purchase very soon.

I'm liking the CRV the most, but the RDX is also an option. We'd probably get Leather+Navi, is the RDX significantly more expensive? Unfortunately we don't like any other of the competition...

[Polaren]

CRV/RDX I believe there is about a $10K difference in total price by the end of it.

[mau108]

CRV/RDX I believe there is about a $10K difference in total price by the end of it.

sounds about right between the top end models of each.

RDX comes with a few more toys and much better sound system. I got the tech package which has bluetooth capability, navigation (one of the best in car navi systems), voice commands (you tell it to turn the cd on it will, climate controls etc....tons of commands) although this feature is cool its not used much (just a "cool" factor toy).

the ELS system is a 10 speaker 410 watts 6 disc changer with DVD-A and DTS capabilities. I believe the 08's have XM sat radio as well. US models also get XM traffic or something where it shows the congested roads on the navi and will re route you through less traffic areas all in real time (I wished they brought this to the CDN models :())

RDX overall does come with a lot of toys and a much more powerful motor (I'd say first honda 4 banger with more torque then hp :P). I'm happy with the car but not everyones first choice.

[The_Professor]

We're also looking for a "cute"ute to purchase very soon.

I'm liking the CRV the most, but the RDX is also an option. We'd probably get Leather+Navi, is the RDX significantly more expensive? Unfortunately we don't like any other of the competition...

My wife and I are in the exact same boat. Right now we're trying to decide if we should get a new CR-V or a used RDX. My only concerns about the RDX are the requirement of premium fuel coupled with the poor mileage. A loaded CR-V has most of the features we're looking for and should be considerably more affordable to own and maintain, but the engine is a weak point for me.

[Polaren]

My wife and I are in the exact same boat. Right now we're trying to decide if we should get a new CR-V or a used RDX. My only concerns about the RDX are the requirement of premium fuel coupled with the poor mileage. A loaded CR-V has most of the features we're looking for and should be considerably more affordable to own and maintain, but the engine is a weak point for me.

You'll find the gas mileage is not as bad as long as you know how to drive a turbo engine properly, well you will learn quick if you haven't. You hit boost..gas mileage goes down the drain, if you don't hit boost gas mileage is not as bad. But if you don't hit boost you realize your acceleration is quite slow, as most of your power comes from the turbo.

The RDX is a great small SUV, the engineering in the engine is quite nice, and a first for Honda in the North American market. It was one of our choices when looking at a SUV for the girlfriend. A turbo car is bad on gas, nevermind a SUV which comes in with a lot more weight. It is something I would choose as I like performance vehicles and the RDX fits that with it's unique engineering, but from a economical standpoint it doesn't fit alot of people's needs. Although most people buying SUV's don't "need" them...but that is another topic.

[chrome_dout]

If you decide to get the RDX (clearly the best choice of the 3), then check out Terrace Gate Acura. A friend of mine just picked up his RDX from there and seems to have got a steal of a deal. Apparently this particular Acura dealership does not see a lot of traffic, which allowed him and his wife to bargain down the sales guy by a significant amount.

[The_Professor]

If you decide to get the RDX (clearly the best choice of the 3), then check out Terrace Gate Acura. A friend of mine just picked up his RDX from there and seems to have got a steal of a deal. Apparently this particular Acura dealership does not see a lot of traffic, which allowed him and his wife to bargain down the sales guy by a significant amount.


Can you post more specific details?

[WalterQ]

Bit of an odd thread … comparing 3 SUVs: 1 small, 1 small luxury, and 1 midsize. Should be a no-brainer to pick depending on your specific needs and budget.

We looked at small SUVs but not enough space for family of 4 with stuff. Cute Utes likely a better choice if you’re moving 1 or 2 people most of the time.

Got the Tribeca and love it, but realistically it compares directly with the Highlander, Pilot , and XC90, Third seat isn’t huge but is fabulous when we’re moving the kid’s friends (and the middle row adjusts so everyone gets space). It’s the only way I avoid the minivan.

Also, anyone buying should seriously look at the US … easy process and big $$$ to be saved, although Honda/Acura and few others make it more difficult.

Also loved New_Yr ‘s comment (#42) … “been looking at used subaru's lately, I can confidently say they don't hold their value that well” … apparently knows better than the Automotive Lease Guide (ALG).who recently named the 2008 Subaru Tribeca “best resale value” in the crossover utility vehicle segment and 4th overall. This kind of spurious commentary doesn’t do RFD’ers any favours. www.motortrend.com/features/newswire/91/32061

[new_vr]

Also loved New_Yr ‘s comment (#42) … “been looking at used subaru's lately, I can confidently say they don't hold their value that well” … apparently knows better than the Automotive Lease Guide (ALG).who recently named the 2008 Subaru Tribeca “best resale value” in the crossover utility vehicle segment and 4th overall. This kind of spurious commentary doesn’t do RFD’ers any favours. www.motortrend.com/features/newswire/91/32061
I stand by my comment. Check the autotrader for yourself. Also, check consumer reports. The rate the CR-V as excellent under depreciation, and the Tribecca as average. (April 2007). Maybe the 2008 will be an anomaly, but I definitely think that Honda is a far safer bet when looking at TCO

[bluestreetlight]

Are you using the turbo a lot and/or what is the speed you normally drive on the highway? I am pretty close to getting an '08.

I don't think I use the turbo a lot, most of the time RPM < 2500.

I only drive max ltd road speed. :twisted:

I think 08 has better fuel consumption rate than 07.

[dsfindlay]

Bit of an odd thread … comparing 3 SUVs: 1 small, 1 small luxury, and 1 midsize. Should be a no-brainer to pick depending on your specific needs and budget.

We looked at small SUVs but not enough space for family of 4 with stuff. Cute Utes likely a better choice if you’re moving 1 or 2 people most of the time.

Got the Tribeca and love it, but realistically it compares directly with the Highlander, Pilot , and XC90, Third seat isn’t huge but is fabulous when we’re moving the kid’s friends (and the middle row adjusts so everyone gets space). It’s the only way I avoid the minivan.

Also, anyone buying should seriously look at the US … easy process and big $$$ to be saved, although Honda/Acura and few others make it more difficult.

Also loved New_Yr ‘s comment (#42) … “been looking at used subaru's lately, I can confidently say they don't hold their value that well” … apparently knows better than the Automotive Lease Guide (ALG).who recently named the 2008 Subaru Tribeca “best resale value” in the crossover utility vehicle segment and 4th overall. This kind of spurious commentary doesn’t do RFD’ers any favours. www.motortrend.com/features/newswire/91/32061
I agree - I was surprised by this 'comparison'. Having said that, don't discount the larger Lambda-platform vehicles (GMC Acadia, Buick Enclave, Saturn Outlook). The AWD Acadia has identical fuel economy to the Tribeca but offers much larger capacity and an adult-sized third row. Effectively, it's a mini-van without the "loser cruiser" stigma. :razz:

I imported my GMC Acadia from the States last month and saved $14,000.

[smartcdn]

Bit of an odd thread … comparing 3 SUVs: 1 small, 1 small luxury, and 1 midsize. Should be a no-brainer to pick depending on your specific needs and budget.

We looked at small SUVs but not enough space for family of 4 with stuff. Cute Utes likely a better choice if you’re moving 1 or 2 people most of the time.

Got the Tribeca and love it, but realistically it compares directly with the Highlander, Pilot , and XC90, Third seat isn’t huge but is fabulous when we’re moving the kid’s friends (and the middle row adjusts so everyone gets space). It’s the only way I avoid the minivan.

Also, anyone buying should seriously look at the US … easy process and big $$$ to be saved, although Honda/Acura and few others make it more difficult.

Also loved New_Yr ‘s comment (#42) … “been looking at used subaru's lately, I can confidently say they don't hold their value that well” … apparently knows better than the Automotive Lease Guide (ALG).who recently named the 2008 Subaru Tribeca “best resale value” in the crossover utility vehicle segment and 4th overall. This kind of spurious commentary doesn’t do RFD’ers any favours. www.motortrend.com/features/newswire/91/32061

thanks walterQ for your comments but clearly you haven't done much research yet.

CR-V is a compact SUV/crossover, you are right
RDX is not a small luxury as you suggest but a midsize one (because of its weight)
-yes, i know it's partly based on the CR-V (but check IIHS and you'll see)
Tribeca is a midsize as well (you are right on this one).

but thanks for pointing out the resale value - i wasn't sure on this one as very few people drive subaru tribecas (and subarus in general), right?

[smartcdn]

If you decide to get the RDX (clearly the best choice of the 3), then check out Terrace Gate Acura. A friend of mine just picked up his RDX from there and seems to have got a steal of a deal. Apparently this particular Acura dealership does not see a lot of traffic, which allowed him and his wife to bargain down the sales guy by a significant amount.

how significant?

the last i heard they are offering $3000 off on the base and $4000 on the tech package.

it is pathetic at best. Acura will likely be forced to double that to $6000-$8000 or more, anyone know when?

[M-e-X-x]

Tribeca will be my choice since its the only one that offers FULL TIME REAL AWD along with ESP .

agreed

Since you highlighted the FULL TIME REAL AWD along with ESP I am interested in knowing how it's better then Acura's SH-AWD?

permanent, on-all-the-time vs. reactive, kicks in when slippage is detected

If you do go nissan, check out the pathfinder and the pathfinder only. I don't like the other suv's nissan has put out.

agreed.. but only japanese-built nissan's.. american-built ones suck



How is an H6 different (better/worse) than a V6? anyone?

lower CoG as everyone says.. quieter i believe (boxers generally)

Subaru focuses safety and reliability over flashiness and looks, AWD on all their models.

agreed... 8 layers thick of steel on the impreza's b-pillar ;)



how i see it and how i've posted many times on the awd/4wd systems debate:

go with awd/4wd systems with a history, a pedigree:

- subaru, audi = wrc legends
- toyota, jeep = used in wars

i don't give a flyin fuk about how sh-awd is a god-send.. until it has some kinda pedigree, i don't consider it a worthy system...

also, there's more to 4wd/awd than just the mechanics of it... if u don't know how to utilize it, then u're screwed anyways.... (referring to an old thread where someone chose a cr-v over a subaru)

[KevC]

As an update, we're heavily considering the B200 (Turbo or not, unsure) as an alternative to the CRV/RDX.

[smartcdn]

As an update, we're heavily considering the B200 (Turbo or not, unsure) as an alternative to the CRV/RDX.

what is the B200? pricing ideas? how does it compare?

[taro-chan]

As an update, we're heavily considering the B200 (Turbo or not, unsure) as an alternative to the CRV/RDX.B200?... That isn't comparable to the RDX... or even the CRV.

[baboo]

As an update, we're heavily considering the B200 (Turbo or not, unsure) as an alternative to the CRV/RDX.

B200 is considerably smaller than the CR-V....about half of the cargo space....:confused:

[The_Professor]

Doesn't the B200 also lack any type of AWD/4WD?

[chrome_dout]

Just an update: apparently Terrace Gate Acura is now RoyFoss Acura? So my friend has not got his RDX yet, and they are having problems with the mgmt at this dealership. So whatever deal he got (he didn't put anything down, including freight/PDI and chopped a lot off the taxes, guess it helped that he knew the wholesale on the car) doesn't seem so worth it now that he has to wait until mid Jan to get his car.

[Avatar]

LOL. Nobody will compare these cars as they are different in price level and grades.

Out of all 3 I'll take Tribeca. The full time AWD is proven in world rally competition and is different from ordinary AWD system. It's sym balance boxer engine provide a lower centre of gravity (better handling) and balance of weight. Subaru is full-time 50/50 split, where some of the other AWD systems need a significant amount of slip or speed before they kick in. The RDX's AWD system is FWD biased but can send more power aft as needed to improve handling or react to slippage. The "SH" aspect of the RDX's AWD system is only there to counteract the inherent FWD understeer behavior of the vehicle. Subaru system with a neutral or RWD bias (such as VTD/VDC) wouldn't need the SH capability to the same extent. SH-AWD is more geared towards performance than rough weather driving.

Here is a good video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4999142340359932162) for comparing the AWD systems.

[M-e-X-x]

Subaru is full-time 50/50 split, where some of the other AWD systems need a significant amount of slip or speed before they kick in.

fail.

50/50 for a mechanical diff. (found in manual tranny subaru)

50/50 in 1st & R & i *think* 2nd, 90/10 for higher gears for an electronic diff. (found in autobox subaru)

45/55 or 40/60 for VTD (autobox WRX's... and i'm guessing tribeca as well)

[Avatar]

fail.

50/50 for a mechanical diff. (found in manual tranny subaru)

50/50 in 1st & R & i *think* 2nd, 90/10 for higher gears for an electronic diff. (found in autobox subaru)

45/55 or 40/60 for VTD (autobox WRX's... and i'm guessing tribeca as well)

When I put down the figure I know somebody will try to say something about it:cheesygri . It's just a general case as I was trying to point out the difference and give an idea about a full time split and a FWD system that will kick in when slip detected. They are different split on various Sub models. As in the case of STi you can change the split manually with a button....

[zircon]

Go to the states, pronto, and get the subie for thousands less than the Honda/Acura. Acura is really ugly and small inside. Honda is ripping you off. CRZV is states is 27 loaded, why 35K (with discount) in Canada. New Tribeca looks good too.

[WalterQ]

I agree - I was surprised by this 'comparison'. Having said that, don't discount the larger Lambda-platform vehicles (GMC Acadia, Buick Enclave, Saturn Outlook). The AWD Acadia has identical fuel economy to the Tribeca but offers much larger capacity and an adult-sized third row. Effectively, it's a mini-van without the "loser cruiser" stigma. :razz:

I imported my GMC Acadia from the States last month and saved $14,000.

Agreed ... these are nice vehicles (actually amazing for GM) but are a definite size up from most mid-size SUVs. Drove it, liked it, but was too big for us (although it can seat 8)

[WalterQ]

I stand by my comment. Check the autotrader for yourself. Also, check consumer reports. The rate the CR-V as excellent under depreciation, and the Tribecca as average. (April 2007). Maybe the 2008 will be an anomaly, but I definitely think that Honda is a far safer bet when looking at TCO


Wow! Checked out AutoTrader on your suggestion and quite impressed with the Subaru Tribeca resale values ... particularly with the major design upgrade for 2008 and big price cuts Subaru and most others instituted with the major exchange rate shift.

Course, buying in the US will blow your TCO out of the water ... can sell in a year for a tidy profit.

[WalterQ]

thanks walterQ for your comments but clearly you haven't done much research yet.

CR-V is a compact SUV/crossover, you are right
RDX is not a small luxury as you suggest but a midsize one (because of its weight)
-yes, i know it's partly based on the CR-V (but check IIHS and you'll see)
Tribeca is a midsize as well (you are right on this one).

but thanks for pointing out the resale value - i wasn't sure on this one as very few people drive subaru tribecas (and subarus in general), right?


Got a chuckle out of this ... when I referred to size, I meant room for people and stuff (like dimensions) ... not how heavy it is. I did drive an RDX and although it's a very nice car, it's just a titch bigger than a CRV (with some resemblance ... understatement), but not quite as big as a Rav4. Didn't suit our needs.

Also, you are correct that Subaru is not a mainstream big numbers brand ... about the same as Acura in Canada in fact, proportionately higher in the US.

[new_vr]

Wow! Checked out AutoTrader on your suggestion and quite impressed with the Subaru Tribeca resale values ... particularly with the major design upgrade for 2008 and big price cuts Subaru and most others instituted with the major exchange rate shift.

Course, buying in the US will blow your TCO out of the water ... can sell in a year for a tidy profit.

Did you check out the CRV? It's resell is even better...even according to the group you quoted.

[henry495]

I am looking for a compact suv and test drove the following vehicles:

The RDX was a blast to drive. It is quick and interior is very nice, however, the premium fuel requirement is a big minus with this car. The rebate around $3000 to $4000 from Acura is a good start but their discount should be even higher since the car is about $10k less in the US and it is made in Ohio.

The Tribeca is just too big for what I am looking for but I love Subaru and had two Subarus in the past.

The Rogue is nice but CVT feels wired, it seemed like constantly hunting for the right gear. Also this is the first year in production, so there is unknown such as reliability and crash test worthiness.

The surprise for me was the Mitsubishi Outlander V6. I test drove a fully loaded vehicle so the interior is quite nice and with V6, it accelerates well. Although the tiny third row is completely useless and no cargo cover (which is a must have for me).

I did not test drive a new CRV because I have driven an older model before. The car felt underpower although I heard the latest redesign added more power so I may test drive it before I made my final decision. Also on my list to try will be the RAV4-V6 and the Mazda CX-7.

This is just my 2 cents worth.

You had also mentioned the Mercedes B200. I believe this car drinks premium fuel and is considered a compact wagon so it will be much smaller than a Tribeca.

[baboo]

The surprise for me was the Mitsubishi Outlander V6. I test drove a fully loaded vehicle so the interior is quite nice and with V6, it accelerates well. Although the tiny third row is completely useless and no cargo cover (which is a must have for me).


+1...I am surprised how underrated this vehicle is among general public. I have test drove the top of the line outlander V6 as well, it is quite a good buy for the price. I will definately choose it over CR-V or RAV-4.

[WalterQ]

Did you check out the CRV? It's resell is even better...even according to the group you quoted.


Actually, wrong again … source (again) is the respected Automotive Lease Guide (ALG), who’ve published annual quantitative measures of resale value for 9 years, and recently named the 2008 Subaru Tribeca “best resale value” in the crossover utility vehicle segment. Although Honda is rated number #1 overall as a brand (and placed Odyssey and Accord in their categories this year), CRV has not made the cut since 2004 for SUVs.

I love Hondas (I’ve owned 5) and know they stand up really well. I simply took exception to your unsubstantiated and incorrect assertion re “used Subaru’s … I can confidently say they don't hold their value that well” (#42). It’s pretty obvious you’re just making this stuff up.

The CRV is simply too small for our needs and the Pilot is a little dated and awaiting its update this year. Besides, Honda will not honour warranty for cars purchased in the US (cutting off the very significant discount from inflated Canadian prices which blows the resale value/TCO calculation out of the water)

[bionicbadger]

The Tribeca is just too big for what I am looking for but I love Subaru and had two Subarus in the past.
.

What about the forester? Its actually an SUV even though it looks kind of station wagonish. This will be the last year that it looks unique, the 2009 model looks like every other small SUV >:(
http://blogs.edmunds.com/.eea179a/cmd.233/enclosure..eea179b

[UrbanPoet]

Where's the RAV4 in this comparison?

Available V6 for that thing? :D 3rd row seating option for kids? :D

My only complaint is cheap interior.


Omg. RAV4 has 3rd row seating? that thing looks tiny though!

[new_vr]

Actually, wrong again … source (again) is the respected Automotive Lease Guide (ALG), who’ve published annual quantitative measures of resale value for 9 years, and recently named the 2008 Subaru Tribeca “best resale value” in the crossover utility vehicle segment. Although Honda is rated number #1 overall as a brand (and placed Odyssey and Accord in their categories this year), CRV has not made the cut since 2004 for SUVs.


https://www.alg.com/depratings
This is the group you keep quoting.
CRV is rated 5 star, Tribeca is rated 4 star. They are in different categories, so don't complete directly.
I still don't agree with there ratings, because they rate the beetle as 5 star deprciation, and as a strong TDI fan, I know they are the cheapest way to get a TDI (though I could never bring myself to do that)
Now, if you look in the trader, the avergage for a 2006 is $29,693.50. This vehicle as $41,995 - $52,495 new.
When I look for a 2006 CR-V the average was $26,990.00, vs $29,300 - $34,200 when it was new
Now, I have no vested interest in either car, I don't own either, and wouldn't want to. I just want to get the facts straight.

[KevC]

We ended up getting an RX350 lol.

[B0000rt]

Omg. RAV4 has 3rd row seating? that thing looks tiny though!
Tiny? Are you mistaking the newer 4.3 2006+ RAV4 for the 4.2 2005 RAV4?

2006+ RAV4
Length 181.1"
Width 71.5"
Height 68.7"

-2005 RAV4
Length 166.6"
Width 68.3"
Height 66.1"

3rd row only fits kids though..

[Avatar]

What about the forester? Its actually an SUV even though it looks kind of station wagonish. This will be the last year that it looks unique, the 2009 model looks like every other small SUV >:(
http://blogs.edmunds.com/.eea179a/cmd.233/enclosure..eea179b

Oh that's the 2009 Turbo Forester? Nice beast. Wondering if they have this STi in NA.

http://pic30.picturetrail.com/VOL1500/8584263/15941369/295825850.jpg

[EL820]

Tiny? Are you mistaking the newer 4.3 2006+ RAV4 for the 4.2 2005 RAV4?

2006+ RAV4
Length 181.1"
Width 71.5"
Height 68.7"

-2005 RAV4
Length 166.6"
Width 68.3"
Height 66.1"

3rd row only fits kids though..

+1 for the Rav4 V6 engine...impressive on paper.

I hate the antenna on the fender, and the spare tire in the back. I was hoping Toyota would make some subtle changes and remove that antenna for '08.

[Stickee]

Oh that's the 2009 Turbo Forester? Nice beast. Wondering if they have this STi in NA.

http://pic30.picturetrail.com/VOL1500/8584263/15941369/295825850.jpg

Sadly, no. :(

[WalterQ]

https://www.alg.com/depratings
This is the group you keep quoting.
CRV is rated 5 star, Tribeca is rated 4 star. They are in different categories, so don't complete directly.
I still don't agree with there ratings, because they rate the beetle as 5 star deprciation, and as a strong TDI fan, I know they are the cheapest way to get a TDI (though I could never bring myself to do that)
Now, if you look in the trader, the avergage for a 2006 is $29,693.50. This vehicle as $41,995 - $52,495 new.
When I look for a 2006 CR-V the average was $26,990.00, vs $29,300 - $34,200 when it was new
Now, I have no vested interest in either car, I don't own either, and wouldn't want to. I just want to get the facts straight.


There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics … where to start in your muddled mess of misrepresented info …

1) ALG ratings you cite ARE TWO YEARS OLD, published two years ago based on 2006 model cars. Believe most people are interested in 2008 models. Heck, why not go back 2 more years to 2004 when the CRV actually won the Best Resale Award that the Tribeca won for 2008.
2) Your Tribeca pricing is equally archaic … not reflecting recent major price reductions, your numbers are as much as 20% TOO HIGH
3) Not sure how with your extensive Auto Trader “research” you can miss that brand new 2008 Tribeca Limited’s are selling for $33K. (even though they tend to sell fast)
4) B9 Tribeca cited is 2006 and 2007 model. Significantly re-designed and improved for 2008, now known simply as Tribeca

Nice to have you as a resident expert on cars you do not own and “wouldn't want to” own, and apparently know little about.

Happy New Year … welcome to 2008 :)

[new_vr]

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics … where to start in your muddled mess of misrepresented info …

1) ALG ratings you cite ARE TWO YEARS OLD, published two years ago based on 2006 model cars. Believe most people are interested in 2008 models. Heck, why not go back 2 more years to 2004 when the CRV actually won the Best Resale Award that the Tribeca won for 2008.
2) Your Tribeca pricing is equally archaic … not reflecting recent major price reductions, your numbers are as much as 20% TOO HIGH
3) Not sure how with your extensive Auto Trader “research” you can miss that brand new 2008 Tribeca Limited’s are selling for $33K. (even though they tend to sell fast)
4) B9 Tribeca cited is 2006 and 2007 model. Significantly re-designed and improved for 2008, now known simply as Tribeca

Nice to have you as a resident expert on cars you do not own and “wouldn't want to” own, and apparently know little about.

Happy New Year … welcome to 2008 :)
While I do agree that past performance may not indicate future results, they tend to be a good rule of thumb. Maybe the 2008 tribeca will be the one outiler in subaru's lineup. I am not saying it can't happen, but it would seem rather odd.
I do appreciate the personal attacks though. That really helps prove your point...I guess :S

[baboo]

While I do agree that past performance may not indicate future results, they tend to be a good rule of thumb.

I will agree with that normally, but not in this particular case. If you look at the 08 and 06 tribeca from the nose, you don't even see any resemblances ....the 06 B9T has been below average on the resale market mainly because of the exterior styling and the 08 model has address that issue...:)

[WalterQ]

While I do agree that past performance may not indicate future results, they tend to be a good rule of thumb. Maybe the 2008 tribeca will be the one outiler in subaru's lineup. I am not saying it can't happen, but it would seem rather odd.
I do appreciate the personal attacks though. That really helps prove your point...I guess :S


Cheer up and don't be paranoid :lol: Pls do not take my posts personally ... they are certainly not intended that way.

I've just pointed out the incorrect, misleading, and unsupported information contained in posts under your handle.

You don't really seem to want to hear it which is fine with me but the real facts speak for themselves for the benefit of others on this site.

Brand new redesigned 2008 Tribecas sell for $33-34K+ in both Cdn and US versions so $27 for a 2 1/2 year old dated model is pretty darn good. Yeah, owners paid more for their 2006's so if anyone thinks Subaru's going to drop their prices $7-8K again, they should wait.

Honda still maintains their outrageous price premiums in Canada (vs the US) so the same situation hasn't happened here (yet?).

Other Subaru models also are rated among the industry's best for resale value by reputable agencies using quantitative measures, but hey, I'm sure you don't want to learn about that either ... kind of undermines the anti-Subaru propaganda.

[new_vr]

Cheer up and don't be paranoid :lol: Pls do not take my posts personally ... they are certainly not intended that way.

I've just pointed out the incorrect, misleading, and unsupported information contained in posts under your handle.


You said this "Nice to have you as a resident expert on cars you do not own and “wouldn't want to” own, and apparently know little about."
That sounds pretty condescending and personal to me.

I don't know why you assume I don't like subarus. I like them more then any other japanese car.
And I know the new model is different...but...I am saying I would expect this model to follow past performance in resale of other models. It is totally possible to support that past models have not had good resale value, but if you can disprove this please do so.
To predict the future...well, you have your reasons for thinking it will hold it's value really well, and I have mine for thinking it won't. I think it's good for people to get both sides of the pic. If someone is making their decision based purely on what one person on an internet forum says, they might want to think a little more about that.

Finally, I would think one of the last reasons to buy a subaru is because of the resale. If that's all that matters, and you don't care how it drives, get a Toyota

[smartcdn]

You said this "Nice to have you as a resident expert on cars you do not own and “wouldn't want to” own, and apparently know little about."
That sounds pretty condescending and personal to me.

I don't know why you assume I don't like subarus. I like them more then any other japanese car.
And I know the new model is different...but...I am saying I would expect this model to follow past performance in resale of other models. It is totally possible to support that past models have not had good resale value, but if you can disprove this please do so.
To predict the future...well, you have your reasons for thinking it will hold it's value really well, and I have mine for thinking it won't. I think it's good for people to get both sides of the pic. If someone is making their decision based purely on what one person on an internet forum says, they might want to think a little more about that.

Finally, I would think one of the last reasons to buy a subaru is because of the resale. If that's all that matters, and you don't care how it drives, get a Toyota

Wrong. In a recent Wall Street Journal study, Toyota was ranked below 9 others in terms of top resale value. Toyota made it in the top 10 but it was at the bottom. The other 9 included BMW, Acura and even Subaru!

[new_vr]

Wrong. In a recent Wall Street Journal study, Toyota was ranked below 9 others in terms of top resale value. Toyota made it in the top 10 but it was at the bottom. The other 9 included BMW, Acura and even Subaru!
On the forbes list, toyota was 3 of the top 10 vehicles(no subarus were on the list, there were 2 hondas and an acura)...
That wasnt really my point. I was just saying you should buy a subaru because you like how it drives,not because of residual values. I can't understand how anyone could like how a toyota drives, but they do have super low TCO's

[WalterQ]

On the forbes list, toyota was 3 of the top 10 vehicles(no subarus were on the list, there were 2 hondas and an acura)...
That wasnt really my point. I was just saying you should buy a subaru because you like how it drives,not because of residual values. I can't understand how anyone could like how a toyota drives, but they do have super low TCO's

Misleading yet again … sigh … New_Yr’s doing it again … using a 2 year old article based on 2+ year old info and 2006 models to refute a 2 month old article based on current info and 2008 models.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11962665

I hadn’t seen the (current, Nov., 2007) WSJ article noted by smartcdn and based on Kelly Blue Book data … thks SC!. I see that Subaru is ranked #6 overall for best resale value for 2008. Toyota squeezed in above the cut-off, at #10. Looks like people can confidently select a Subaru based on how it drives and its anticipated resale value.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119500709742992309.html

Info dovetails nicely with the recent Automotive Lease Guide (ALG).award for “best resale value”, for the 2008 Subaru Tribeca.

FYI, folks may also be interested in a current Forbes article (Dec., 2007), again based on Kelly Blue Book data, that list “10 best cars”.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22420764
It’s also a good reminder not to generalize across a brand based on individual cars as GM leads the list with 4 entries and BMW with 3.There is no Subaru on the list but there is a Toyota (sort of, if you count the lone Scion). Of course GM and Toyota have “stuffed the ballot box” with way more models than other nameplates, so it’s not a huge surprise something sticks.

[new_vr]

Misleading yet again … sigh … New_Yr’s doing it again … using a 2 year old article based on 2+ year old info and 2006 models to refute a 2 month old article based on current info and 2008 models.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11962665

I hadn’t seen the (current, Nov., 2007) WSJ article noted by smartcdn and based on Kelly Blue Book data … thks SC!. I see that Subaru is ranked #6 overall for best resale value for 2008. Toyota squeezed in above the cut-off, at #10. Looks like people can confidently select a Subaru based on how it drives and its anticipated resale value.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119500709742992309.html

Info dovetails nicely with the recent Automotive Lease Guide (ALG).award for “best resale value”, for the 2008 Subaru Tribeca.

FYI, folks may also be interested in a current Forbes article (Dec., 2007), again based on Kelly Blue Book data, that list “10 best cars”.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22420764
It’s also a good reminder not to generalize across a brand based on individual cars as GM leads the list with 4 entries and BMW with 3.There is no Subaru on the list but there is a Toyota (sort of, if you count the lone Scion). Of course GM and Toyota have “stuffed the ballot box” with way more models than other nameplates, so it’s not a huge surprise something sticks.
Don't blame me for being anti subaru. I am not. I don't have an emotional connection to either subaru or honda. If I had bought one, maybe I would...
You did notice that Honda was ranked #4 above Subaru? No need to point out non-supporting arguments though. Also, notice that Subaru had no cars in the top 10. And the Tribbeca did win for best crossover, but did you also notice that crossover had the lowest residual value for any category? Also, if you kept looking, you would see the 2008 Tribeca did hold slightly more value then the RDX (percentage wise) but not as much as the CR-V (which are in different categories)
Either way, I wouldn't buy any of them. I am not ready for a minivan yet

[baboo]

Also, if you kept looking, you would see the 2008 Tribeca did hold slightly more value then the RDX (percentage wise) but not as much as the CR-V (which are in different categories)
Either way, I wouldn't buy any of them. I am not ready for a minivan yet

:confused: :confused: :confused: These are not minivans....

[WalterQ]

Don't blame me for being anti subaru. I am not. I don't have an emotional connection to either subaru or honda. If I had bought one, maybe I would...
You did notice that Honda was ranked #4 above Subaru? No need to point out non-supporting arguments though. Also, notice that Subaru had no cars in the top 10. And the Tribbeca did win for best crossover, but did you also notice that crossover had the lowest residual value for any category? Also, if you kept looking, you would see the 2008 Tribeca did hold slightly more value then the RDX (percentage wise) but not as much as the CR-V (which are in different categories)
Either way, I wouldn't buy any of them. I am not ready for a minivan yet

Original false assertion (post 42)

I plugged in $1.00 a liter, for reg, and 1.10 for premium. I put annual mileage to be 20K per year. The numbers fueleconomy.gov gave were $2614(tribecca) vs $2724 (RDX)
A bigger financial consideration would actually be depreciation. As somoene who has been looking at used subaru's lately, I can confidently say they don't hold their value that well.

Truly bizarre

Started with the fabricated assertion that Subaru’s do not hold their value well, now suggesting #6 ranking in resale value overall for little Subaru, 0.8% back of Honda is apparently still not good enough?

Will wait to hear back … my ex-wife always had to get the last word in too. Wait a minute … you’re not Sheila are you?

[new_vr]

Original false assertion (post 42)
Will wait to hear back … my ex-wife always had to get the last word in too. Wait a minute … you’re not Sheila are you?

The funny thing is...you have to as well. You don't add anything else to any other conversation, just this one. And I love the extra personal attack again

[golden]

Seems like it's a good time for me to jump in this thread, as I was in the same boat, deciding on importing a Tribeca or buy a local RDX. I went with the later for a few reasons:

(1) The drive and handling: RDX wins hand down (it's so obvious, thinks a high sport sedan vs a mini-van)
(2) The look and interior: RDX wins (ok, this might be subjective)
(3) The fit and finish: RDX wins (not even arguable as anyone can tell you that Honda has better fit and finish than Subaru)
(4) SH-AWD is amazing in the snow but I cannot say the Subaru is very good or not as it was test driven on dry road.
(5) We don't need the 3rd row seat
(6) Acura = better resale value than Subaru (especially one imported)

Well, I got the base RDX in case anyone wonder, vs I could have gotten a full loaded Subaru (with Navi). I'm buying a Garmin GPS for my RDX instead for a few hundreds and be a happy camper.

[WalterQ]

Wow! ... $34K incl freight/PDI is a good price for a new 2008 RDX in Canada. MSRP for the base is over $43K.

Where did you get it? It'd be a nice 2nd car for $34K. That's only about 10% more than they sell them for in the US.

Resale value must be good because it seems year old used models are selling for more than $34K!


Seems like it's a good time for me to jump in this thread, as I was in the same boat, deciding on importing a Tribeca or buy a local RDX. I went with the later for a few reasons:

(1) The drive and handling: RDX wins hand down (it's so obvious, thinks a high sport sedan vs a mini-van)
(2) The look and interior: RDX wins (ok, this might be subjective)
(3) The fit and finish: RDX wins (not even arguable as anyone can tell you that Honda has better fit and finish than Subaru)
(4) SH-AWD is amazing in the snow but I cannot say the Subaru is very good or not as it was test driven on dry road.
(5) We don't need the 3rd row seat
(6) Acura = better resale value than Subaru (especially one imported)

Well, I got the base RDX in case anyone wonder, vs I could have gotten a full loaded Subaru (with Navi). I'm buying a Garmin GPS for my RDX instead for a few hundreds and be a happy camper.

[henry495]

Wow! ... $34K incl freight/PDI is a good price for a new 2008 RDX in Canada. MSRP for the base is over $43K.

Where did you get it? It'd be a nice 2nd car for $34K. That's only about 10% more than they sell them for in the US.

Resale value must be good because it seems year old used models are selling for more than $34K!


Where did U get the $34K price from? If this is true, it's a terrific price for a new RDX.

I am currently waiting to see how much the 2009 Subuaru Forester Turbo will cost.

[M-e-X-x]

did walterq mix it up with the tribeca figures? no way an rdx can be bought in canada for 34k all in..

[WalterQ]

I thought it seems 'too good to be true' as well which is why I asked for more info ... I am referring to Golden's suggestion (above) that he purchased the base RDX in Cda for about the same as a well equipped Tribeca in the US (which I know is under 34).

I know they sell RDX's for less in the US but they like to clip Canadians for a substantive premium up north.

How about it Golden? ... how close was the price and where did you get it (if it is in the ballpark of the Tribeca)?

(I also assumed RDX is a 2008 model but who knows?)

Where did U get the $34K price from? If this is true, it's a terrific price for a new RDX.

I am currently waiting to see how much the 2009 Subuaru Forester Turbo will cost.