Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Crossover SUV Comparison

1114115117119120237

Comments

  • cason1cason1 Posts: 65
    Also, you have to look at the size of the seat bottom; ie: from the seat back/seat cushion intersection to the front of the cushion. Some of them are ridiculously short. Easy way to pick up a couple inches of "leg room", but I suspect that a large number of adults sitting there are going to be uncomfortable as heck given no support under their lower thighs. BTW - the second row of the lambdas has a similar seat cushion.
  • nastacionastacio Posts: 370
    Shorter seat cushions don't help legroom, tilting them upwards do. As I understand it, legroom is measured on a straight line from the hip to the front seat and then down to the floor.
  • nastacionastacio Posts: 370
    The transmissions have a lot to do with fuel economy. Gear ratio, and shift position, as well as top gear cruising RPM's factor into fuel economy. The engine is not the only factor.

    I didn't mean it in general, but in this specific case. Both the CX-9 and the lambda engines run at about 1600rpm @65mph.

    GM optimized the power curve for 65mph cruising and that was a smart thing to do. I wish Ford had done the same to its 3.7 engine, lowering peak torque RPM way lower than 4250RPM instead of bumping it up so much (21 lbft is a lot for a 0.2 liter increase.) Technical limitation or choice, Ford is not at the same level as GM in the engine department.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    May I ask, where are the specs for the 3.7L from Ford? What vehicle is it in/going to be in?

    Thanks!

    (Just passing by on the way to a different forum, but that caught my eye as I haven't heard).
  • Agreed. Tilting them up provides more support. But when I tilt up the driver's seat in my Outlook, my a-- drops so low I practically lose visibility. In general, I feel the seats do not rise high enough in the Outlook. The driver's seat is barely above the center console. Ergo, no support under the legs.

    For those of you who read my previous posts, you're right! I'm the guy with the leg and hip pain. No resolution yet.

    Test drove a VC, but would need more time behind the wheel to adequately gauge comfort as I drove 1.5 hrs from work in the Outlook and within minutes got behind the wheel of the VC while still in pain. Got a good deal on an '07 GLS with Premium Package that the dealer was willing to offer on an '08, but as expected, I got hosed on a trade.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Got a good deal on an '07 GLS with Premium Package that the dealer was willing to offer on an '08, but as expected, I got hosed on a trade.

    Would the dealer go ahead on the deal if you sold the car yourself and offered no trade? That'd be the route to go if so.
  • Fairly certain he would, but that might depend on what he thought he might get on a resale.

    Still uncertain about the 3rd row in the VC and ingress and egress, but that would be for the kids to decide. Prefer the Outlook - which is why I bought it - but the seating discomfort isn't going to go away!!
  • chuckhoychuckhoy Posts: 420
    I would say that the Ford seats look the best.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    The angled seats may help with thigh support for those seats so low to the floor, but ideally you'd design the seats to be up higher to give thigh support and so you don't feel like you're sitting in a bucket.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Is this a non-contender anymore? If so, why?

    Just curious to hear what you all think.
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    Actually, the thin steering wheel, the tiny A/C buttons (compared to a traditional turning knob,) and the single stalk are objective points as they interfere with function. I agree that appearance would be subjective.

    The huge size of the CX-9's center console definitely interferes with front passenger space. And those aluminum strpis can reflect during the day.

    Driver's comfort goes to the CX-9 (indirect blue lighting, thicker steering wheel, proper two stalks, traditional rotary AC controls), as does equipment (bluetooth, a power hatch and larger wheels) and price (1K less.)

    Driver's comfort definitely goes to the lambdas as studies show that red light is better for your eyes when driving than blue- which makes my head hurt. And no one has complained about the AC controls. Eventually, GM will give up and offer bluetooth.

    Parking space manuverability is an advantage, but the lambdas manuver into spaces just as well as the CX-9.

    Right back to the CX-9 's only advantage being performance.
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    Pilot's definitely a contender, just an outdated one waiting more desperately than Honda expected for a change. After a remodel, it will definitely top some competitors, like the new Highlander.
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    Explorer has more third row leg room, and more interior width. With 2nd row seats moved back a little, Explorer has more overall legroom.

    No offense to the TAURUS X (must we be so juvenile?), but I think Ford is embarassed by it. So they just may want to "get by" until the Flex is showroom-ready.

    Right now I would say that there isn't enough crowd of TX lovers to canibalize Explorer sales.
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    The CX-9's looks like there is no legroom- like your legs have to stop at your knees. So you won't be getting the 38 in of leg room promised in the 2nd row.

    Enclave's definitely looks the best to me, and while you definitely sit up higher above the ground in the Buick, the stadium seating in the TX looks nice.
    Off topic- If you want to see real stadium seating, look at the Jeep Commander. I saw one that was lowered for effect, and the rows went up like a mountain. But there is no second/ third row leg room.
  • chuckhoychuckhoy Posts: 420
    And no one has complained about the AC controls.

    Most just set the climate control and forget about it. You never have to mess with it again.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    wish Ford had done the same to its 3.7 engine, lowering peak torque RPM way lower than 4250RPM instead of bumping it up so much (21 lbft is a lot for a 0.2 liter increase.) Technical limitation or choice, Ford is not at the same level as GM in the engine department.

    Umm....excuse me...Mazda decided to up the engine to a 3.7L, along with a new map. Not Ford. This engine is rumored to be used in possible up comming Ford products. Mazda builds this engine completely in Japan. It even sounds different then the 3.5L used in 2007.
  • freealfasfreealfas Posts: 652
    Found in another forum I read...

    "October 2007
    Reliability findings
    Here are the details on our analysis of how automakers from around the globe fare

    DENTS IN TOYOTA'S ARMOR

    Toyota's reliability record in our survey would make it the envy of almost any other automaker. But Toyota seems to have fallen victim to bug-ridden redesigns. Two models with below-average reliability are the Camry with the V6 engine and the four-wheel-drive V8 version of the Tundra pickup. Both were redesigned for 2007. The third is the all-wheel-drive Lexus GS sedan. Because we don't recommend models with below-average reliability, those three no longer make Consumer Reports' recommended list (see What's up, what's down).

    However, the four-cylinder version of the Camry and the hybrid versions of the Camry and GS all scored above average and will continue to be recommended.

    What went wrong? The survey identified problems with the six-speed automatic transmission as the major concern with the Camry V6. Subscribers reported problems with the four-wheel-drive system in the Tundra. Owners of the AWD Lexus GS informed us of problems with power accessories and the audio system.

    Because of those findings, we will no longer recommend new or redesigned Toyotas without reliability data on a specific design. If Toyota returns to its previous record of outstanding reliability, we may resume recommending its new models based on history.

    FORD'S RELIABILITY IMPROVES SIGNIFICANTLY

    The odds of getting a reliable new vehicle from Ford are the best we've seen in years. Of the 44 models from Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury in our survey, 41 of them scored average or better in predicted reliability. Only the Ford Explorer (V8), Mercury Mountaineer (V8), and the Lincoln Mark LT are below average.

    The Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan remained above average in their second year and ranked among the top reliable family sedans. New for 2007 SUVs such as the Ford Edge and Lincoln MKX, as well as the freshened Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator, were all average or above.

    The other domestic automakers did not fare as well. Only 49 percent of General Motors and 67 percent of Chrysler models had average or better predicted reliability. Their new or redesigned for 2007 models were more mixed. The new GMC Acadia, Saturn Outlook, and Saturn Aura XE had average or better reliability; the redesigned 2007 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra 1500 and 2500 were average or better. But the redesigned Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon dropped to much below average after above-average reliability last year in its initial few months. The redesigned Cadillac Escalade SUV and EXT pickup, the Chevrolet Avalanche, Chevrolet Suburban, GMC Yukon XL, and the new Saturn Aura XR were all below average. The Pontiac Solstice, introduced for 2006, has the worst new-car prediction score in the survey.

    Chrysler had a few reliable first-year models. The Chrysler Aspen, Jeep Compass, and front-wheel-drive Dodge Caliber were above average. But the all-wheel-drive Dodge Caliber and Dodge Nitro were much below average. The Chrysler Town & Country and Dodge Grand Caravan minivans improved to average in their last year before a major redesign. The Jeep Commander and Dodge Charger had improved to average as well.

    MEAGER GAINS FROM EUROPE

    The news from Europe has been mostly dismal in recent years, with models from Jaguar, Land Rover, and Mercedes-Benz doing poorly in our surveys. Things may be turning around, even if some vehicles aren't quite there yet. As recently as 2005, very few European luxury sedans could scrape up even an average rating in reliability; only the Audi A4, BMW 3 Series, Saab 9-5, and Volvo S60 were up to the task. Jaguar and Mercedes-Benz weren't even in the running, with some models having consistently poor reliability.

    But now, the Audi A3, A4, and A6 are all average or better, as are some or all versions of the BMW 3, 5, and 7 Series. The Volvo S60 is above average, as are the V70 and XC70 wagon derivatives before their 2008 redesign. And for the first time in recent years, the Mercedes-Benz C-Class (V6, RWD) is no longer below average. The C-Class has been redesigned for 2008. The Jaguar S-Type has improved to average and the Mini Cooper S hatchback is much better than average. The Porsche Cayman is among the most reliable, but time will tell how this model will hold up. The Porsche 911 is above average and is now recommended.

    We're also seeing a few positives with European SUVs. The BMW X3 and X5 are both average, and so is the perennially troublesome Volvo XC90, at least in its six-cylinder version. All Mercedes-Benz and Land Rover SUVs are still well below average.

    ASIA CONTINUES TO DOMINATE

    Reliability remains a Japanese forte. All Honda, Subaru, and Mitsubishi models that we have sufficient data for ranked at least average. Moreover, 9 out of the 10 models with the top reliability are Japanese makes.

    Just because a vehicle carries a Japanese nameplate doesn't make it reliable. Nissan's Armada SUV, Titan pickup, and Quest minivan continued to be well below average. The Infiniti QX56 has perennial reliability woes. Mazda's new CX-7 and CX-9 SUVs and Suzuki's Grand Vitara SUV have also shown to be unreliable, as are the previously mentioned Toyotas.

    The South Korean nameplates, Hyundai and Kia, continue to show improved reliability; most models are now average or better. But some models are suffering some glitches. Among them are the Kia Amanti sedan, Sedona minivan and its Hyundai Entourage twin, and the Kia Sorento SUV."
  • nastacionastacio Posts: 370
    The 3.7 I am referring to is the one found in the CX-9. It is sourced from the Ford parts bin, with some individual tuning by Mazda. I believe the numbers are 273hp/270lbft.

    Some people have mentioned that a DSI version of this engine may find its way to the Lincoln MKX.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,221
    May I ask, where are the specs for the 3.7L from Ford? What vehicle is it in/going to be in?

    No specs have been confirmed for the Ford version yet grad. But it is rumored to be dropped in the next F-150, Mustang, Explorer, and a couple of Lincolns. The Lincolns will most likely get the DI version making upwards of 320+ HP. A TwinForce 3.5L making around 400 HP is rumored as options for them as well.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see the Flex get the 3.7L either given its size.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    Right back to the CX-9 's only advantage being performance. and braking, handling and just about every other driving dynamic for those who care about such things...of course braking distance is definitely a safety issue as well.
  • Driver's comfort definitely goes to the lambdas as studies show that red light is better for your eyes when driving than blue- which makes my head hurt.

    You are absolutely correct about the red lighting being better than the blue.

    However, the "blue lighting" in the Mazdas is really a non-issue. The accent lighting is extremely subdued, to the point that you really don't notice it much - and the blue on the instruments is really just a subtle contrasting backdrop for the text and indicators, which are red, as they should be.

    The bright blue instruments on my old Jetta (which VW touted as a clever feature that made them different) really kick the migraines in, let me tell you...

    -c92
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Pilot's definitely a contender, just an outdated one waiting more desperately than Honda expected for a change. After a remodel, it will definitely top some competitors, like the new Highlander.

    How do you figure it will "definitely top" the new Highlander when we don't know anything about it yet?
  • nastacionastacio Posts: 370
    I didn't realize the Mazda engine was such a fork in the design trunk, but the comment stands, the original 3.5 achieves peak torque at even higher RPMs (4500 vs. 4250) while GM managed to do it at 3200 RPMs.

    Ford *and* Mazda are not at the same level as GM in that department then :-)
  • nastacionastacio Posts: 370
    Right back to the CX-9 's only advantage being performance.

    That is the one point where I don't agree the CX-9 has an advantage for its target market. Straight line acceleration is about the same and it is not like people will be carving canyons while carrying 6+ passengers.

    At any rate, I think we just entered "it is too/it is not" territory...

    ...but I am right ;-)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    At any rate, I think we just entered "it is too/it is not" territory...

    ;) :P :blush: No we're not!
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    At any rate, I think we just entered "it is too/it is not" territory...

    I guess the difference is that when not only are folks here in this forum saying that the driving dynamics are better in the CX-9, but so are several magazine reviews. The Odyssey minivan beat the Town & Country and Sienna in reviews because of the better driving dynamics too, and I don't expect many minivan owners to be "carving canyons." Better driving dynamics is beneficial even during normal driving, as well as being safer.
  • nastacionastacio Posts: 370
    Despite the driver's feeling of more responsiveness, the CX-9 and the Acadia were virtually tied for all but one driving dynamics number, which was braking. Even the MT figure-eight test, a good indicator of canyon-prowess, had both at 28.2 seconds.

    Braking is better, so I would agree to that account.

    My "it is too/it is not" statement was less about performance than about all the other points. The "about the same" comment about parking space maneuverability - despite the CX-9 shorter wheel-base, narrower body and smaller turning radius - made it that much clear.

    PS: The Odyssey beat the other minivans in other departments besides performance. Car & Driver, for instance, also listed "the best front seats, great instrument cluster, nifty second-row mother-in-law seat". It also dinged the Caravan for "rather bleak interior materials".
  • nastacionastacio Posts: 370
    A link would suffice :-)
  • freealfasfreealfas Posts: 652
    sorry for trying to save you a click...
  • tsu670tsu670 Posts: 293
    Actually, thanks for posting the article instead of the link. It wasn't that long to page down through, and sometimes links have a way of becoming obsolete or inactive after a month or so.
Sign In or Register to comment.