Howdy, Stranger!

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





Crossover SUV Comparison

11617192122237

Comments

  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    Pilto comes out in OCtober of this year. That's right- this year!
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Where'd you hear that if i may ask? I haven't heard ANYTHING about the Pilot
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    THey are both on modified MAzda 6 platforms
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    I think a magazine or auto show. But it was recently
  • jasonj734jasonj734 Posts: 35
    No they are not -- CX-7 is C1. That is one of the major reasons it has a Turbo 4, V-6's don't fit that well in the C1 platform as it wasn't designed to accommodate them.

    CX-9 is CD3 based.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,798
    "THe Acadia is definitely a CuV as it's car like ride is much better than Freestyle and gas mileage is just as good for a car that outaccerates the FS with much better pickup."

    It would be useful to get your facts straight.

    The Freestyle gets 19 / 24 with AWD, and 20/ 27 with FWD. The Acadia varies between 17-18 MPG city, and 24 - 26 highway. So no, it does not get better MPG. The FS gets better MPG.

    Also, the Acadia is heavier by 700 lbs (AWD FS - it is 900 lbs heavier than my FWD). No way you are going to throw that much weight around at 19 / 24, with those engine sizes - real world MPG will be way less.

    Garnering EPA numbers on a test is quite different from real life; physics cannot be repealed and there is no free lunch. Heavier and larger engine = worse MPG in the real world.

    Maybe you were thinking Taurus X, which uses new EPA testing and has a different engine. But you said (well, wrote, actually) Freestyle.

    FWIW, I get 20 in town and 26 @80 MPH highway in my 2006 FS. At 65 it will get around 30 MPG.
  • jasonj734jasonj734 Posts: 35
    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp has what older vehicles will get under the new Fuel Economy ratings for the '08 model year. It is a nice tool for comparing a '08 vehicle to a '07 vehicle.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,213
    No they are not -- CX-7 is C1.

    Actually you're both right, but let's end this once and for all. ;)

    Here's the real story.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,798
    "http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp has what older vehicles will get under the new Fuel Economy ratings for the '08 model year. It is a nice tool for comparing a '08 vehicle to a '07 vehicle."

    People should note the word Estimate in the tables.

    The FS will get a new engine, and the Acadia isn't listed there. I don't think there will be certainty until the vehicles are tested. But the 2008 ratings will be for Taurus X, not the Freestyle.

    Note that the Taurus X will have a similar HP engine, will be 700 to 900 lbs lighter, and use a variant of that same Ford/GM developed 6 speed transmission found in the Acadia. The concept of it getting worse MPG or performance doesn't seem likely.
  • srinaldisrinaldi Posts: 22
    Better ask again, I checked with a Honda rep and the Pilot is not until fall 08 as an 09 model. Check the Honda Pilot forums as well. No changes until then.
  • sddoc07sddoc07 Posts: 19
    Hey Bobw3 and other similar posters, instead of dropping smart-alec comments about automakers, perhaps you could relate some real-life stories of problems you've had with GM/other vehicles? As someone who has driven Nissans, Infinitis, GMCs, Chevys, and Hondas, I take exception to Bob3w's holier than thou attitude, as I've found GM vehicles to be (not perfect but) way above average in reliability (Nissan, for example, is far worse, particular in the first year of a model or redesign).

    As for the ongoing debate, I have to say that after test-driving the Acadia, I think it is potential huge hit for GM. It really hits the sweet spot in utility/capacity, driving ability, and looks. As for price, well, try pricing a similarly loaded Tahoe and THERE'S your value. But for everyone out there who keep nitpicking keep these things in mind when you are looking at all of these crossovers:

    1) Third-row seats = compromise NO MATTER WHAT! My 2003 Honda Pilot's third-row seat is functional, is it comfortable? Not too much! Is it safe? I hope so. Is it as good as my 1st and 2nd rows? No way! Besides minivans, this holds true for all vehicles and I think the Acadia comes the closest for crossovers. Expeditions probably have the best 3rd row seat overall but they've got their own problems.

    2) Fuel economy = depends largely on you. The weight penalty of these bigger crossovers means that driving habits drives this game, especially in city driving.

    3) I laugh when I see people argue over torque, towing, etc. Be honest with yourself, you will not tow over 5,000 lbs unless your wife finally lets you buy a boat. You will not race sports cars at stoplights. My Honda Pilot probably has one of the "weakest" engines at 255 hp among these candidates but it has plenty of oomph for the things I need to do i.e. drive on the highway, change lanes, etc.

    Hope I'm not rehashing previous points. Good luck!
  • hardhawkhardhawk Posts: 702
    After attending the Chicago Auto Show and looking at all these vehicles, it becomes obvious that GM has done the best job of repackaging the minivan and calling it a crossover. That's all the Acadia, Outlook and Enclave are, repackaged minivans that hopefully won't carry the minivan stigma. The bottom line is that buyers are paying dearly for the lack of minivan stigma. Is it worth it? Only time will tell.
  • loachloach Posts: 246
    Minivan stigma? No, I'm going to pay for AWD. Can't get that on a minivan unless I buy a Toyota Sienna with run-flat tires that cost $2000 to replace.
  • practicalpractical Posts: 53
    Just checked TireRack.com, $ for Veracruz and CX-9 are big difference.
  • wlbrown9wlbrown9 Posts: 838
    Re: European-level gas prices...I calculate that I use about 950 gallon per year for about 17K miles. If I add $4 gallon for additional tax that totals about $3800 per year. I don't really want to give the goverment that much additional money for them to waste and the oil companies will only get that when the price goes to $120 per barrel. I guess if you were to take that 10-20 billion out of the economy that would surely put the brakes on any economic recovery.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    I take exception to Bob3w's holier than thou attitude,

    What post# are you talking about? Post #13 was a joke!
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Some people don't take sarcasm very well, and on the net it is hard to figure out sometimes. I looked at the post you made, and with the ;) in there, you were pretty obviously joking in my opinion.

    You should know that fun is not allowed on this board! :P
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,110
    You should know that fun is not allowed on this board!

    Well, that's just not true! As with all humor, delivery is paramount and we cannot be held responsible for deficiencies in that regard. :shades:

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • rossdmrossdm Posts: 39
    Hi all -
    I haven't had a chance to check out a CX-9 in person, but I've seen the cargo numbers. I've owned a Pilot since November 2002. Has anyone compared, in person, the cargo capacity in 5-passenger mode of the CX-9 vs. the Pilot (especially the shape of the available cargo area)? I know that the Pilot is taller and wider and the CX-9 is longer. I'm thinking that might lead to a more useful shape in the Pilot (for our needs, anyway), the cargo area being more "cubic", vs. the longer, narrower CX-9.

    We travel 1200 miles to Pennsylvania every summer hauling 2 months worth of clothes and other gear, so the SHAPE of the cargo area is as important as the size. We find the Pilot's more square-shaped cargo area VERY flexible.

    The other thing that concerns me about the CX-9 (and ALL Pilot competitors) is the placement of the tranny shift lever. The Pilot has it on the steering column, which frees up the space between the front seats for the Pilot's GIGANTIC center console storage. A small family could live in there. We are so used to having that humongous space for fast foot, drinks, CDs, books, small animals, etc. that my wife will absolutely NOT give up that space while travelling. It looks like every competitor has the shift lever between the front seats, robbing the vehicle of that huge storage space. That may well be the undoing of anything else for me but another Pilot. Anyone have thoughts on that?

    Thanks,
    Dave
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    I agree that the Pilot has great interior space utilization for a vehicle that's only 188" long. Honda has always been a leader in space utilization. For example, I own a Honda Fit that's only 157" long, yet has 21CuFt behind the second row and 42CuFt with the rear seats folded.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,738
    i think if the freestyle was a honda(lighter, allowing a smaller engine and better fuel economy) it would be a marvel.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    Yeah, right. Add a foot of useless overhang onto the Pilot, add more hard interior plastics, cut its hp, and take away stability control, and you would have something akin to the Freestyle. (Am I glad that running shoe-sounding name is being deep-sixed.)
  • prosource1prosource1 Posts: 234
    To address these issues:

    -The Pilot does have less than pleasing interior dated plastics which is an aesthetic issue more than a functional issues
    -The Pilots hp is plentiful. This is not an issue. How fast and how much do you need. And I'll take the 24mpg (realworld) I got on a trip last summer anyday.
    -My Pilot has Vehicle Stability Assist.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    To what are you responding?
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Posts: 458
    "Well, that's just not true! As with all humor, delivery is paramount and we cannot be held responsible for deficiencies in that regard."

    Wait a minute there... "Fun" is built on a completely different platform than "Humor," and is not just a stretched version of it. They come from totally different factories with different engines. Plus, the reliability record for "Fun" is a lot better than "Humor," so I don't know why anyone would want to have "Humor" when they could have "Fun" for just a little more... :P ;)
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    Since you asked, I was responding to this:

    To address these issues:

    -The Pilot does have less than pleasing interior dated plastics which is an aesthetic issue more than a functional issues
    -The Pilots hp is plentiful. This is not an issue. How fast and how much do you need. And I'll take the 24mpg (realworld) I got on a trip last summer anyday.
    -My Pilot has Vehicle Stability Assist.


    Except for the interior plastic (which I happen to think is better in the Pilot than than in the Freestyle), these were all my points. Maybe I need to be more clear?

    The Pilot is more space efficient than the Freestyle, tidier on the outside than the Freestyle, is more powerful, and has stability control, which the Freestyle inexplicably doesn't even offer. Thus, I don't think people would go nuts over the Freestyle if it had a Honda label on it. It also would need to have Honda attributes.

    Now why the above defensive comments followed my favorable comparison of the Pilot to the FS remains a mystery to me.
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    This was posted at another forum - looks like it undercuts the competition:

    GLS 3.8L V6 6-Speed A/T w/SHIFTRONIC® Front-Wheel $26,305
    GLS 3.8L V6 6-Speed A/T w/SHIFTRONIC® All-Wheel $28,005
    SE 3.8L V6 6-Speed A/T w/SHIFTRONIC® Front-Wheel $28,005
    SE 3.8L V6 6-Speed A/T w/SHIFTRONIC® All-Wheel $29,705
    Limited 3.8L V6 6-Speed A/T w/SHIFTRONIC® Front-Wheel $32,305
    Limited 3.8L V6 6-Speed A/T w/SHIFTRONIC® All-Wheel $34,005

    Great Pricing!!
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Oh. Well you linked my post saying "hehe" with your post, so I wasn't really sure what you were trying to say, or to what you were responding. Sorry...:)
Sign In or Register to comment.