Howdy, Stranger!

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





Crossover SUV Comparison

1212213215217218237

Comments

  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,933
    i haven't been over here in a while and just saw your reply.
    it's good to know we are still on the same wavelength. :)
  • volkovvolkov Posts: 1,302
    The bickering could be fun. I don't know, so many of the postings came from folks who already had purchased their CUV's, so why would rising gas prices kill it? I certainly did think it would skew discussions re. fuel economy. AND CUV's are continuing to sell as they represent more economical alternatives to their SUV brethren in most cases so customers are still out there.
    OTOH Forester and CR-V sales have jumped significantly in the last couple of months. Maybe more are moving to the smaller class 5 passenger vehicles unless they truly require the 3rd row whereas even a year ago, customers were buying the bigger vehicles simply for the flexibility.
  • mattandimattandi Posts: 588
    Dodge Journey
    VW Tiguan
    redesigned Pilot

    Everyone seems to have an opinion on what they consider "best." This segment is getting so crowded most of those opinions can apply to a greater number of vehicles. Maybe the available alternatives are outgrowing the differing opinions.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Saw the new Pilot today, and must say, it does look a lot better in person than in pictures.
  • mattandimattandi Posts: 588
    I like the look as well and I do think it looks better in person than in the pics. Then again, I am a fan of the trucky look. The swoopy, curvy look, as has been the trend with CUV's, is growing on me, but I can't say it is my preference.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The bug-eyed look of the original concept is more toned down in person. That was the biggest caveat; the headlights.
  • vad1819vad1819 Posts: 309
    I can agree with the gas price will kill SUV/CUV/VAN market. In Europe is happened long time ago. It's finally is coming to this country. I may to say, now I'm kind worry if i will be able to drive my Acadia two years from now. It will interesting development in the next couple years. Each week I'm spending $50-60 worth of gas. (one car)
    If someone is looking to buy family car should consider a Mazda 5. This will be perfect car for now and future days fuel prices.
  • mattandimattandi Posts: 588
    The Kia Rondo is another interesting option. These small people movers have been running around Europe for some time now. I think we will see more of them here soon in various iterations of hybrids, diesels, EV's, and such.
  • saabturboidsaabturboid Posts: 178
    If someone is looking to buy family car should consider a Mazda 5. This will be perfect car for now and future days fuel prices.

    I had a Mazda 5 for a rental once. I was shocked that it only managed to get in the low to at best mid 20s for mpg, and that was with just me riding around in it. It seems that a vehicle so much smaller than the typical minivan/crossover should get well into the 30s for mpg. I guess it just proves that one can not simply judge gas mileage by size, or a book by its cover for that matter. ;)
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    I think space and comfort are going to beat out MPG for most folks. A Rondo or Mazda5 will cost only about $20K, as compared to $30K+ for these CUVs discussed in this forum. If folks are already willing to pay $10K+ more for a CUV, do you think paying an extra $11.50/week (see below calculation) in gas they're going to pay buy buying a CUV vs a Rondo/Mazda5 is going to cause them to buy the smaller vehicle?

    If you drive 15,000 miles/year and average 25mpg, you'll pay $2400/year for gas at $4/gal, as compared to $3000/year if you're driving something that only averages 20mpg, then $600/52 = $11.50.

    On the other hand, I personally like the Mazda5 and if it saves me $10K on the purchase price AND $600/year, then it's a good buy to me for a lot more reasons than just MPG.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    It should be noted that mileage is marginally better with the new 5-speed automatic and revised engine tuning.

    2007 Mazda 5, 4-speed auto: 19/24
    2008 Mazda 5, 5-speed auto: 21/27
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    OTOH Forester and CR-V sales have jumped significantly in the last couple of months

    Count me in on that trend.

    Our special order 2009 Forester arrived and we're picking it up today! :shades:

    Forester sales were up 49% in April and up 66% in May. The fact that it gets 20/26 mpg with AWD can't hurt. Plus the new one is bigger. Unless you really need a 3rd row (we still have the minivan) something this size will cost less to buy and a lot less to own and operate.

    Oops, I said the M word again. :D
  • mattandimattandi Posts: 588
    I think that you have hit on the shift that is beginning to take place in the US market. We have put a higher "value" on space and comfort as well as many other factors. That "value" has been driven by rational and irrational thought, subjective and objective measures, perception, marketing, yada yada. MPG has not received very high priority.

    We're slowly coming to the realization/rationalization that carting around all that space all the time is not the necessity we have believed and that comfort is not the exclusive domain of larger vehicles. I think folks are more widely beginning to pay attention to the small details of budgeting and issues like total cost of ownership. Those are not as sexy as space, comfort, driving dynamics, or maybe even cupholders, but I think they are moving up the list of priorities.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    Just curious...if you already have a minivan, why get a Forester, since the mivivan will satisfy all the cargo hauling needs. You could get a 4cyl Accord or Camry with better MPG and more comfortable inside probably even cheaper. Or even a Toyota Matrix, Honda Civic or Fit, or other vehicle. I'm just wondering why folks need more than one big vehicle in a family.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Fair question...

    The minivan will continue to be our trip/weekend car, basically. It will be the one we take on longer trips, and when we need cargo capacity (149 cubic feet is bigger than my first apartment I think).

    The wife doesn't like big vehicles. To be honest, I prefer smaller ones too. The Forester is actually under 180" long, so it's very easy to park and actually pretty compact on the outside, a foot or more shorter than those sedans. Plus, visibility is actually better. She sits up high, and has a panoramic view. Forester might win the "easiest to park" award if there were one.

    Plus, sedans are useless. Sorry, but to us they are. You're lucky if you can squeeze 14 cubic feet through the narrow openings. She had a Mazda 626 a couple of vehicles ago, and went to a Legacy wagon before her new Forester. The wagon was just a whole lot better at gobbling up stuff from Costco, groceries, etc. She car pools so she'll carry 3 kids in the back once in a while, so we have extra booster seats in the cargo area, which would pretty much fill up the trunk of a sedan. American sedans don't get rear wipers, which compromises visibility. The C-pillars are wider, too, while wagons/crossovers have narrow pillars, usually.

    So the criteria were fairly compact, yet still roomy, with great visibility. We wanted AWD since this is our only snow car. My work rarely closes, but she stays home so I'll be driving the Subaru when it snows. That ruled out a lot of options.

    Accord - no wagon available, no AWD. She didn't like the CR-V's styling, visibility compromised by the D-pillar.

    Camry - same. RAV4 has wrong-way swing door and poor visibility.

    Matrix - I showed her one but she found it a bit too small. Visibility is awful. Toyota ruined it with this redesign. The window behind the C-pillar is a bad joke. Same for the Scion xB. Back to the drawing board, please.

    Civic - no wagon. No AWD. I'd consider the euro 5 door model if it were sold here, but for myself.

    Fit - no AWD and too small, but mostly a matter of not feeling "safe" on the highway among far bigger cars. I love the Fit - we helped my mom buy one.

    At the auto show I showed her the Rogue, but she thought it was the ugliest car at the show. I actually kinda like it.

    What else? I test drove an Outlander 2.4l CVT, but visibility is poor and the CVT feels totally disconnected (Nissan executes their CVT *far* better).

    She test drove a friend's new Altima sedan, but felt it was too low to the ground and complained about having to back it up down a hill.

    A while back we drove a Saturn Vue but that simply felt heavy, bulky, for some reason.

    We shopped mostly in the compact crossover class. Sure they are glorified wagons but that's what she wanted - a wagon bodystyle with a higher seating position and AWD.

    Bottom line: the Forester was roomy inside, and shorter than a Chevy Cobalt or Mitsu Lancer outside. It's a paradox - a Big Compact.

    She's quite happy. Now if she'd only let me drive it ... :D
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Bottom line: the Forester was roomy inside, and shorter than a Chevy Cobalt or Mitsu Lancer outside. It's a paradox - a Big Compact.

    She's quite happy. Now if she'd only let me drive it ...


    There was a car commercial not too long ago (I forget what vehicle it was marketing) that showed a couple, each progressively waking up earlier every day in order to be the first one to the new car that morning. Maybe you should just set your alarm clock to wake up nice and early, and sneak out for a drive! :)

    Congrats on the wheels, at.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I remember that, it was kind of dark, yet still funny.

    I think it was for the Mercury Mariner?

    I did take a peek at a hybrid Mariner, but at $30k well equipped, after discounts, that interior just doesn't hold up well in that price territory.

    We do have a Subaru Chase credit card, and applied $1600 Subaru Bucks toward the purchase. So our Limited model came out to about $23.4k, that's with the panoramic moonroof, heated and perforated leather seats, 6CD changer w/MP3 capability, PZEV engine (+5hp and greener), and a bunch of accessories.

    I guess we could have had another Legacy wagon (2.5i Limited) for a tad less, but the Forester is smaller and just as roomy inside, plus she wanted something different.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I think it was for the Mercury Mariner?

    That's it!

    I guess we could have had another Legacy wagon (2.5i Limited) for a tad less, but the Forester is smaller and just as roomy inside, plus she wanted something different.

    Nothing wrong with wanting something different. It's why my parents went from their second identical silver Accord (03 and 05) to an Atomic Blue Civic in 2007!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Yeah...

    In terms of ownership costs, it really helps when a company has a credit card where you can earn points/credit. Subaru does, obviously, but so does BMW, VW, and Toyota is adding one per Automotive News, last I heard. Not sure if Ford and GM still have one nowadays?

    So we got $1600 off the purchase price, but we can also use future credits to buy accessories or even to pay for service. It maxes out at $500/year, and she puts business expenses on that card, so over, say, a 7 year ownership period you're talking about a pretty significant $3500.

    We've had the card for 4 years, so $100 went towards some accessories we wanted. Then $300 went to the body shop (insurance paid us so we kept the extra $300 in cash - ka-ching!). The $1600 remaining went towards the new Subaru.

    If we had decided on something else, I could have used that to pay for the 60k mile service and to fix a dent on the door of the Legacy we sold.

    We didn't, so basically it let us get a loaded up Limited model for the price of a mid-level model instead. :shades:
  • autowriteautowrite Posts: 226
    We have a minivan & we are not going to trade it/sell it; period. We drove it from Ontario, Canada to Texas in Feb 08 and averaged 30mi/can gal & it was loaded with 2 sewing machines and piles of luggage. Yesterday we bought and loaded the minivan with wood trim for our house (16 pieces of 7 ft x 3") . We are retired on CPP pension. No way are parting company. This van makes sense! Some rich speculators are getting rich jacking the price of oil. This needs to stop.

    2002 Honda Odyssey EX (current)

    Previous vehicles
    1992 Ford Taurus L 4 door 300 cu in long-stroke
    1982 Ford E150 Customized by Triple-E travel Van 351 cu ins V8
    1979 Mercury Zephyr 6 cylinder 4-door sedan
    1972 Datsun 510 4-door automatic
    1967 Plymount Valiant 2-door sedan large-v6
    1965 Morris 1100
    1963 Austin 850 mini
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I drove the Pilot Touring 2WD today, with RES and NAV. I must say, I was impressed with the isolation of the ride and engine, very quiet for a Honda; my aunt, who was with me (and the one shopping), commented it was ahead of her 2005 Odyssey EX.

    The engine didn't make the car feel fast, but it was certainly just fine for its purpose. One thing I made sure to notice was the functionality of the "ECO" mode. It was on pretty often during our drive, which included city driving with speeds that eventually led to 60 MPH (a State Hwy in town). Very quiet, and honestly, HONESTLY, I felt no indication that the engine switched modes. It was completely impreceptable to me, and I even cut the A/C off so as to hear a difference. Overall, it is an impressive effort by Honda, in my opinion.

    One thing I couldn't get used to was the perceived size of the thing. I guess the big flat hood and extra width made it feel really large. It could also have to do with the fact that the previous car we had driven was a Honda Fit Sport (which I'll comment on in the proper forum). Quite a difference! Haha.

    In the end, I still don't love the styling (front-end), but the Pilot is worth a look anyway. I left impressed.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Cool, thanks for sharing.

    We spent 4 days with friends in Tucson that own an Ody and they let me drive it, I remember the ECO light but it only went on very seldom, basically when we were coasting to a stop at a traffic light.

    Maybe it's using the 4 cylinder mode more often than it used the old 3 cylinder mode.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,638
    And the spam is gone. :shades:

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    You're quick! I deleted the post to which your responded, since it was irrelevant. ;)
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,638
    Gee, don't you enjoy plowing through a bunch of ads and spam to get to the real posts in here?

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Of course, doesn't everyone?!

    It's already "Acadia-Ville" in here today on my screen thanks to all the ads.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Posts: 877
    thegraduate said: "In the end, I still don't love the styling (front-end), but the Pilot is worth a look anyway."

    I agree, Honda is evoking memories of the Pontiac Aztek with that thing... UGLY! Some will like it, but, then again, some people buy Pug dogs, too....

    You mentioned Variable Cylinder Management (VCM), where 3 out of the 6 cylinders sometimes shut down to save fuel. But do they save fuel? The Honda Pilot gets 16 MPG in the city, and the Mazda CX-9 also gets 16 MPG in the city, except the CX-9 does NOT have VCM. I don't understand that. Both vehicles are comparable in size, weight, and horsepower. That VCM doesn't appear to do much to save gas. Actually, I can brag because my Freestyle gets 27 MPG on the highway routinely, and 20 in city driving without the added expense and complexity of VCM ( for the Freestyle, its the CVT tranny that really causes the higher MPG compared to others).
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Posts: 194
    VCM functions primarily on the freeway, you won't see much difference in the city.
  • coldcrankercoldcranker Posts: 877
    The VCM activates at light load, cutting out half the cylinders, so that cruising easy on the highway at 55 or 60 it may activate more, while cruising at 70-80 mph it will need all 6 cylinders. Hills and passing, the VCM will be off as well, as the load is higher and all 6 are needed. In the city, every time you idle at a stoplight or hit the brakes to stop, VCM will activate. I'd say it does it more in the city during coast down and stop time.

    However, the EPA highway rating for the Mazda CX-9, at 22 MPG (no VCM) is the same as the Pilot's 22 MPG. And their city MPGs are the same at 16. Why doesn't VCM have much affect anywhere? Very odd.

    In fact, the Acadia, Dodge Journey, and Taurus X, all with similar sized V6 engines get better MPG than the Pilot, although the Pilot is the only one with VCM. The Odyssey, with the same engine/tranny as the Pilot, does seem to benefit from its VCM, besting all the above mentioned vehicles in MPG by 1 at least. Maybe the answer is in the extremely poor aerodynamics of the Pilot, while the Odyssey has better aero, and it shows up in the MPG numbers. Certainly the ugly box/weird shapes on the Pilot must be creating a high drag coefficient.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Considering the same engine in last-year's non VCM Pilot got 15/20 and that the current Pilot WITH vcm gets 16/22, I'd say the vcm DOES help it get better economy in that particular engine.
Sign In or Register to comment.