Si hubiéramos salido cinco minutos antes, no habríamos llegado con tanta prisa a la estación.

Because this sentence talks about an unreal past situation: something that did not happen.

Si hubiéramos salido is the pluperfect subjunctive. After si, Spanish uses this form for past counterfactual conditions:

• Si hubiéramos salido... = If we had left...

By contrast:

• si salimos usually refers to a real or possible condition
• si salíamos would not fit this counterfactual meaning here

So the speaker is imagining a different past.

Habríamos llegado is the conditional perfect. It expresses the hypothetical result in the past.

So the structure is:

• si + pluperfect subjunctive
• conditional perfect

In this sentence:

• Si hubiéramos salido cinco minutos antes = if we had left five minutes earlier
• no habríamos llegado con tanta prisa = we would not have arrived in such a rush

This is one of the most common Spanish patterns for past unreal conditions.

No, not in standard Spanish.

After si in this kind of sentence, Spanish does not use the conditional. It uses the subjunctive:

• Correct: Si hubiéramos salido...
• Incorrect: Si habríamos salido...

A very useful rule is:

• after si for unreal past conditions → hubiera / hubieras / hubiéramos...
• not habría / habrías / habríamos...

Yes. Hubiéramos salido and hubiésemos salido are both correct.

They are two equivalent forms of the pluperfect subjunctive:

• si hubiéramos salido
• si hubiésemos salido

The meaning is the same. In many contexts, -ra forms like hubiéramos are a bit more common, but both are standard.

Because Spanish usually omits subject pronouns when the verb ending already makes the subject clear.

Here:

• hubiéramos already means we had
• habríamos already means we would have

So nosotros is unnecessary unless you want emphasis or contrast, for example:

• Si nosotros hubiéramos salido antes...
  This sounds more emphatic, like if we had left earlier...

Because with haber, the past participle does not agree with the subject.

So in compound tenses, the participle stays the same:

• he salido
• has salido
• hemos salido
• habrían llegado

The participles salido and llegado do not become plural or feminine here.

It means five minutes earlier than the time we actually left.

It modifies hubiéramos salido:

• Si hubiéramos salido cinco minutos antes...
• If we had left five minutes earlier...

So antes here is not just before in a general sense; it means earlier relative to the real past event.

Yes, you could say cinco minutos más temprano, and it would be understandable.

But cinco minutos antes is often the more natural choice when comparing one action with the time it actually happened:

• salir cinco minutos antes = leave five minutes earlier

Más temprano often feels a bit broader, more like earlier in the day or earlier than expected, while antes fits very naturally with this kind of time comparison.

It means in such a rush or with so much hurry.

The key word is prisa = hurry.

• con prisa = in a hurry
• con tanta prisa = in such a hurry / with so much rush

So the sentence is saying they would still have arrived, but not so rushed.

Because prisa is a noun, and Spanish uses tanto/tanta/tantos/tantas before nouns.

• tanta prisa = so much hurry / such a hurry

By contrast, tan is used before adjectives or adverbs:

• tan rápido = so fast
• tan tarde = so late

So:

• con tanta prisa ✅
• con tan prisa ❌

They are related, but not identical.

• con prisa = being in a hurry, under time pressure
• deprisa = quickly, fast

In this sentence, the idea is not mainly that they moved fast, but that they arrived rushed or under pressure. So con tanta prisa fits better.

Compare:

• Llegamos con prisa = We arrived in a hurry
• Llegamos deprisa = We arrived quickly

Those are similar, but not exactly the same.

Because llegar normally takes a before the destination:

• llegar a la estación
• llegar al hotel
• llegar a Madrid

So:

• llegamos a la estación = we arrived at the station

This is the standard pattern: llegar a + place.

Because in Spanish, no usually goes directly before the conjugated verb.

Here the conjugated part is habríamos, so:

• no habríamos llegado

That is the normal way to negate the clause:

• habríamos llegado = we would have arrived
• no habríamos llegado = we would not have arrived

Yes. Spanish allows some flexibility.

For example, you could also say:

• No habríamos llegado con tanta prisa a la estación si hubiéramos salido cinco minutos antes.

That means the same thing.

A useful punctuation note:

• when the si clause comes first, a comma is commonly used:
  • Si hubiéramos salido..., no habríamos...
• when it comes second, usually no comma is used:
  • No habríamos... si hubiéramos salido...

Yes. You could say:

• no habríamos llegado a la estación con tanta prisa

This is also natural.

Both orders work:

• llegado con tanta prisa a la estación
• llegado a la estación con tanta prisa

The meaning stays basically the same. The difference is mostly one of rhythm and focus.

It describes a past event that did not happen that way.

The speaker is implying:

• we did not leave five minutes earlier
• as a result, we did arrive in a rush

So the sentence is a reflection about a different possible past:

• If we had left five minutes earlier, we would not have arrived in such a rush at the station.

That is exactly the kind of meaning Spanish expresses with:

• si + pluperfect subjunctive
• conditional perfect

They show where the stress falls.

• hubiéramos
• habríamos

This matters because Spanish spelling uses accent marks to indicate pronunciation when the stress does not follow the default pattern.

For a learner, the main practical point is simply:

• keep the written accents
• pronounce the stressed syllable clearly

They are part of the correct spelling of these verb forms.