Howdy, Stranger!

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





Crossover SUV Comparison

1127128130132133355

Comments

  • nastacionastacio Posts: 370
    The irony to that is the OP he was responded to made no mention of the T-reX.

    I don't know if I am encouraging the behavior by responding, but the OP wrote:

    Who can calm my fears about GM or offer a better alternative for my family?

    Since he didn't list the Taurus X nor the Enclave, I thought it would be fair to bring both into the discussion.

    Most people discard the Enclave because they see it as expensive (I did too in recent past) without realizing that a similarly equipped Acadia or Outlook will cost about the same.

    By the same token, a lot people discard the Taurus X as being smaller, so that I thought worth mentioning that it was similarly sized.

    Maybe you got offended because I mentioned I liked the Enclave design better, which was somewhat unnecessary, but I made it clear that it was my opinion.

    No one got on your case when you wrote "I contend that is a design that will age well" for the FS (and I didn't call that ridiculous).

    Unless you meant it will age relatively less, with which I would agree.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    This is a comparison thread; it says so right in the title.

    You directly compare the curb weight, HP, and power-to-weight in one breath, and then talk about safety in the other, and you're not comparing? Okey-dokey, if you say so.

    My point is, we can't talk about the crash test results in the same context. The Freestyle scores well for crossovers in the 3800-4200 weight class.

    The Lambdas have scored well so far in a much higher weight class, and we don't have results for the head rests. Unlike you I don't see a reason to pre-judge what hasn't been tested yet.

    on road performance of the T-reX was going to be better

    Accident avoidance manuever results:

    Ford Freestyle, January 2006: 47.0 mph
    Saturn Outlook, current issue: 50.0 mph

    The Saturn actually managed a rather substantial advantage in this objective measure of manueverability.

    Fact is, you're hyper-critical of the Lambdas, particularly their mass, yet mass does add safety, and you talk about safety in every other breath.

    Then you defend that position by saying the Lamdbas are cumbersome, overweight, and couldn't avoid an accident to save their lives yet they manage an avoidance manuever at a substantially higher speed than the Freestyle does in the same test.

    I find your positions rather inconsistent.

    Show us poor crash test results for the Lambdas. Show us objective measures to prove your theory that the Freestyle or Taurus X "perform a whole lot better".

    3mph slower is not a whole lot better. It might be the difference between being able to avoid an obstacle and not completing the maneuver at all.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    By the way, the Veracruz tied the Outlook, and the CX9, Edge, and Pacifica were close.

    All of the above beat the Freestyle by a wide margin in the accident avoidance manuever.

    These are not my opinions, they are objective measurements. Don't shoot the messenger.
  • volkovvolkov Posts: 1,302
    No, I just had it on my long list. Haven't even seen one live. Long drive to nearest dealer so doing ++ research ahead of time to avoid wasting time.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,719
    "When people start waking up and seeing that Honda- and Toyota aren't truely on top in quality, then the waves of sales will begin to change. "

    I have bought only Toyotas and Hondas before my current Ford. While the FS has been good over all, it does not compare with the quality of the Honda brand. Plus, Honda tends to stand behind their product. For example, the Gen 2 CR-Vs are blowing A/C Compressors at the moment - evidently a batch of bad components. Honda America is replacing them at low or zero cost to the customer. Honda believes in quality in a way that the American auto firms cannot comprehend.

    I would consider another Ford - the FS is unlike any Ford I've ever driven - but it isn't a Honda.

    I also think that the plastic in the Honda lines appear cheap because plastic that will last tends to look that way. My 2003 CR-V interior would scratch pretty easily, but I don't expect it would have cracked over time like cheaper plastics.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    When it comes to safety, I think just about every CUV being discussed are close enough to be equals, given that any safety test, measure or star-rating has a certain level of error. Especially since they all now have side-curtain airbags, ABS, stability-control, etc.

    What about resale value for those folks only keeping their vehicles for a few years. Just another thing to put into the equation of choices...What will that $40K Buick get you as a trade-in in 3 years versus a $40K Acura?
  • freealfasfreealfas Posts: 652
    "Show us objective measures to prove your theory that the Freestyle or Taurus X "perform a whole lot better"."

    I just did,

    T-reX FWD 3959 / 263 = 15.0 lbs/hp
    torque 249 = 15.8 lbs/lbs tq.

    enclave fwd 4780 / 275 = 17.3 lbs/hp
    torque 251 = 19.0 lbs/lbs tq.

    that's objective proof the T-reX is going to perform better than a lambda in a straight line.

    "Accident avoidance manuever results:

    Ford Freestyle, January 2006: 47.0 mph
    Saturn Outlook, current issue: 50.0 mph"

    We've moved on to the T-reX in this discussion and you bring up the 06 FS for your point. Now that the T-reX has ESP standard I suspect that number will improve so let's keep the conversation consistent at least and available when the T-reX has a number to post.

    I never said the lambda's performed poorly during crash testing. I do not understand why they have not been rear crash tested yet, period. I'd think GM would want their family hauler evaluated completely. They may come out fine, they may not.

    They are heavy to thier detriment, period. As I have repeatedly pointed out, bring them down to a 4200lb weight more in line with its competition and you will have a much better vehicle. It will accelerate better, corner better and return better fuel economy. You cannot dispute any of those points. Accepting "on par" seems the mantra around here, WHY? How come NO one wants to agree to that point, I'd really like to know that answer.

    To have a 8 cuft advantage over a close competitior at a weight penalty of 800lbs is POOR DESIGN regardless of how fast it is, how much it costs, blah, blah, blah. Rationalize to me HOW to GOOD EFFECT that the lambdas use that much weight. They have to provide a larger engine to move it, they have to provide larger tires to manage its increased rolling resistence, all at the expense of mpg which is part of why CUV's are bought for.

    Compare to the minivan crowd and the results are even more ridiculous as the mini's pack more space in less weight. Compare it to a full sized 2wd yukon and it only gets 2mpg better and the yukon is 22in longer and weighs 1000lbs more.
    What has GM proved?

    Then you'll use the classic, well they already get the best CUV mileage. I never argued that, my point is in the days of $3+ gal gas every mpg helps because gas is not going to get any cheaper why not make it even better to start? Nothings perfect, I know, I know as life is compromise. The point is GM missed the boat completely in the weight department for it's CUV competitior with only an incremetal space increase than its competition which has now been flushed out. The end does not justify the means.

    For those concerned about profit margin, they would have been higher because there is 800lbs more "stuff" to put in each and every lambda and that "stuff" costs money. Engineer it out at a reduced cost at the beginning of the process and you have the opportunity to either sell at a reduced cost or make a higher profit if the market will bear.

    My point is not inconsistent. The Lambda's ARE overweight to NO GOOD EFFECT, they would be much better vehicles if they had managed that aspect much better. They would also be safer to those around them as nastacio pointed out and at no cost to their occupants, so what's wrong with that.

    If they weren't so out of line in the 3 row CUV crowd I'd say to all of you GM won the war based on their design and engineering talents and deserve the accolades for a job well done. At this point they only did part of the job, the easier one making the uncritical, undemanding, more, more, more buying public happy, reasonably well. That just doesn't do it for me nor should it you but that's just MHO.
  • nxs138nxs138 Posts: 481
    And be prepared to spend a couple thousand more on gasoline too.

    A couple of thousands a year, or in the lifetime of the vehicle? Premium gas is 20 cents more/gallon where I live, you probably pay $4 more per fillup. If you do this every week, it only adds up to about $200 more per year.

    You're getting ripped off if you're paying 40 cents more for premium gas. Nationwide, the average difference between regular and premium is about 20 cents.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,719
    "A couple of thousands a year, or in the lifetime of the vehicle? Premium gas is 20 cents more/gallon where I live, you probably pay $4 more per fillup. If you do this every week, it only adds up to about $200 more per year.

    You're getting ripped off if you're paying 40 cents more for premium gas. Nationwide, the average difference between regular and premium is about 20 cents."

    Yeah, I agree that it really isn't that much, but somehow that "head" knowledge doesn't filter down to the pocket book. I still won't buy a vehicle that requires premium fuel. When I had a vehicle that used either (2002 Odyssey), I chose to run regular fuel. But that choice was based on the fact that the MPG gain for Premium did not offset the extra cost.

    My Odyssey adjusted shift points based on the fuel type, and it had better power and MPG with premium. The effective cost was probably about 20 cents (Premium costs about 40 cents more per gallon here in LA), but I just didn't want to pay the difference. Premium yielded about 1.5 - 2 MPG better than regular fuel.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    To add to post 2629, the added weight will really affect the city MPG a lot more than the highway MPG, since once you get a vehicle up to highway speeds, it more wind resistance over weight that really affects MPG.

    So before anyone starts quoting what sort of highway MPG they're getting on flat highways cruising at 65mph, also let us know what your MPG for day-to-day non-pure-highway driving. Then you might see more the effect of the added weight.

    BTW...Our FS FWD gets consistenly just over 20MPG for our normal around-town driving. On highway trips, it will get in the mid to upper 20s MPG, and even hit 30MPG on a few hundred mile stretch of 65mph.

    As far as using premium gas...what CUV needs it? Also, if you drive 15,000 miles per year and get 20mpg, that's 740gal of gas, x $.20/gal extra for premium = $150 per year or about $0.41/day. For some folks, that's might not be too much to pay.
  • Thanks for the info. I know the minivan has everything I want, but I am married and the van is lacking cool to it. I may add some spinners to it to spice it up some ;). Actually, she has gotten to this answer as well since the Sienna offers everything we want (Safety, Releiablity, gas mileage, Cargo Space, 3rd Row Space, etc.)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Outlook was still quicker than the Edge (same issue).

    The Taurus X is lighter so we'll have to wait and see, but I seriously doubt we'll see it "perform a whole lot better". That'll probably depend on gearing, which you forgot to mention.

    T-reX has ESP standard I suspect that number will improve

    I don't agree with that assumption at all. Remember, stability control applies the brakes, it actually reduces the speed. It's often commented in these tests that the speeds are limited by such systems. ESP will not make it faster, just as ABS doesn't shortern stopping distances. It will help maintain control at the same (or lower) speeds, though.

    If the Taurus X posts up better numbers, it will be due to better tires or something else, not ESP.

    They are heavy to thier [sic] detriment, period

    I disagree, they feel rock solid. This comes at a cost, sure, but I disagree with the "period" part. You are completely ignoring the priorities others may have. Owners feel safer in a bank vault than they do in a tin can.

    I'm not saying any vehicle here is a tin can, but the Outlook does feel vault-solid.

    The Lambda's ARE overweight to NO GOOD EFFECT

    Again, some people value a feel of solidity more than you. Plus, lighter materials often cost more.

    I wrote a review on the Outlook back in January, and here are some things I commented about it:

    It's very sturdy, substantial.
    HUGE space inside, wow.
    It drives big, but well. Smooth ride

    All of those comments are GOOD EFFECTS related to the high mass of the Outlook.

    And once again, you'e ignoring the fact that more mass is an advantage to the Outlook in a multi-vehicle crash. You try to spin it as a disadvantage, even, which only shows your personal preference for lighter cars.

    Just realize that others may have different preferences than you!

    You know what's funny? I generally prefer lighter cars, but at least I am willing to acknowledge that extra mass gives you more safety in a multi-vehicle crash, sheesh.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Oh, by the way, I can't resist...

    We've moved on to the T-reX in this discussion and you bring up the 06 FS for your point

    You totally dodged that one.

    You guys have been tooting the Freestyle's horn for years now yet you totally dodged the fact that in an accident avoidance manuever it simply performed very poorly.

    I think that got you so upset you started yelling at me (all caps), so I'm sorry about that. :P

    So I'll ask it now, why does the ultra-light, featherweight, under 4000 lb Freestyle perform so poorly in accident avoidance, arguably the highest priority to someone like you who talks about manueverability and safey in every other paragraph.

    The result is a bit embarassing, given all the behemoths in this class do so much better.
  • "You guys have been tooting the Freestyle's horn for years now yet you totally dodged the fact that in an accident avoidance manuever it simply performed very poorly."

    You wanna show us your source for this?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Consumer Reports, January 2006 issue.

    I looked up accident avoidance specifically because that is the topic we are discussing.

    Remember, people were making the point that lighter vehicles were generally more maneuverable and more likely to be able to avoid the accident in the first place.

    So, I went and looked it up. Imagine my surprise! :D

    If you read all the pro-Freestyle posts in here you would think the Freebie could perform the maneuver at the speed of light.
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,110
    a heavier vehicle will absorb more of the impact than a lighter vehicle

    I'm not quite sure what that means. Newton tells us that the change in momentum (mass times velocity) of two colliding vehicles are equal and opposite. Perhaps you meant to say that the change in speed of the heavier vehicle will be less.

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • I don't happen to have the January 2006 Consumer Reports laying around. I do know that their reputation is such they find fault with everything under the sun. What does it say exactly?
  • freealfasfreealfas Posts: 652
    "Outlook was still quicker than the Edge (same issue)."

    Edge weighs more than the T-reX

    "You know what's funny? I generally prefer lighter cars, but at least I am willing to acknowledge that extra mass gives you more safety in a multi-vehicle crash, sheesh."

    NOT once have I said it didn't but to have us on a little more fair footing would be to the benefit of all as I pointed out. Just because you bought the biggest doesn't mean you should have the opportunity to provide undue damage for someone who chose not to buy the biggest or couldn't afford it.

    It just sets up a different kind of class system yet again.

    I know, I know, we all have choices...

    "Again, some people value a feel of solidity more than you. Plus, lighter materials often cost more."

    weight and perception of "safer" are not always an indicator of crash worthiness. It just gets back to design and where you pick you battles, you can engineer solid feeling and lighter weight.

    And the higher light weight material cost could be offset by the reduction of having to provide 800lbs more of "stuff" so that doesn't fly and not to mention more freely adopting lighter materials will bring cost down with the economy of scale.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I don't have it here in front of me, but I thought I'd share those objective, measured results.

    People get real jumpy about Consumer Reports but their Ford Explorer and Explorer Sport were both significantly quicker through the accident avoidance manuever than the Freestyle was. I see no reason for them to lie about the FS and not the others.

    My theory is that they started with the very solid Volvo P2 platform and worked very hard to lighten the weight of the suspension components, and this caused a substantial drop in accident avoidance capability.

    Just kidding about that last part, but you gotta admit, that was funny. :D

    I changed the thread title and hopefully we can linger on this topic for the next, oh, 2 years or so. ;)
  • cotmccotmc Posts: 1,081
    "As far as using premium gas...what CUV needs it?"

    Please read all the posts. If you scan among last night's entries, you'll see someone mentioned the MDX requires premium fuel. Although these are smaller 5-seater models not usually discussed here, the Mazda CX-7 and Acura RDX also require premium. As far as I know, all European models also require premium fuel.

    Somebody reported their local stations charge 40 cents more per gallon for premium than regular. Around here, the stations had always charged about 20 cents more per gallon for premium, but this summer that average has changed to about 24 cents/gallon. Some stations nearby now charge as much as 30 cents/gallon more.
Sign In or Register to comment.