Howdy, Stranger!

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





Crossover SUV Comparison

1233234236238239355

Comments

  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    http://www.saturn.com/saturn/vehicles/outlook/pricing.jsp

    Here it shows the Outlook having 19.7 CuFt behind the 3rd row, but maybe the acadia has more?

    http://autos.aol.com/cars-Ford-Freestyle-2006/specs
    http://www.fordenespanol.com/assets/pdf/brochures/07_Freestyle_catLR.pdf

    These show the Freestyle having 20.7 CuFt behind the 3rd row, and also have some good photos of the 3rd row and cargo areas.

    Being so much wider, I'd expect the Acadia to have more space in general, but the TX/FS is pretty good too in these areas.
  • freealfasfreealfas Posts: 652
    since you see fit to call another readers driveway occupants boring why don't you share with the class what resides in your driveway so we can do the same???

    or is it albook thinks he has game and therefore can say anything he wants night????
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    Maybe in inches, but more comfortably. pretty good logic here :P ignore the objective numbers and go with one persons opinion of comfort!

    Actually, looking at photos of the Acadias 3rd row makes it look uncomfortable because they tried to design it for three across, so if you're only sitting 2 across, then your bottom is right on the seatbelt. At least in the TX, you're not sitting on the seatbelt! Maybe in the Acadia they slide towards the center?
    http://www.saturn.com/saturn/vehicles/outlook/photoGallery.jsp
    see what I mean...

    http://www.fordvehicles.com/crossovers/taurusx/index.asp?section=PHOTO_GALLERY
    Each of the two seats in the TX 3rd row look wider than each of the 3 individual seating positions in the lambda's 3rd row.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    It doesn't have SUV ground clearance, or SUV ride height.

    Good...that way I don't need to climb UP to get inside. That's why it's a CUV, not SUV.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    Lots of fun posts here...Bottom line is that the lamdas are the biggest and most SUV/truckish..yeah for the lambdas! A good choice for those downsizing from Suburbans and other big GM vehicles.

    But, there are some folks (like me and some others here) who value more car characteristics in a vehicle that can carry 7 adults comfortable in all 3 rows and don't need the extra bulk of a lamba to do that...so the TX/FS is a good choice, as is the CX-9. The CX-9 is really just a sporty version of the TX/FS.

    I think the lambda folks are just jealous because the FS was out 2 years before the lambda, which is pretty much a copy of the FS design, just a few inches wider. The FS was the first in this category...providing adult seating in all three rows and decent cargo behind the 3rd row in a CUV.

    And I'm still waiting for those calling the FS/TX just another wagon to provide an example of any other wagon that can hold 7 adults plus luggage...just one example... :P
  • larryqwlarryqw Posts: 52
    I rode in the Outlook (similar to Acadia) and Taurus X repeatedly one after the other, as I had issues with room for me and my tall family of five. I sat in all three rows of both cars with my 6'1" height and 250 lbs wide. My inseam is 35", so I have the legs of someone more like 6'3". My impression is as follows.

    Front Seat:
    Both are fine on width, but Outlook had a bit more with side room for moving the legs around more as well. The T-X just barely made it for me on leg length. I wish I had another inch, but was able to fit by putting the rear of the seat all the way down and front of the seat all the way up, so my legs were slightly folded. On the Outlook, I had way more length than I needed, and didn't even need to go all the way back. I note the specifications give the Outlook 3.5" more leg room, and I felt it. But I was able to deal with the T-X. Pity anyone with longer legs on the T-X.

    Second Row Seats:
    This is where the Outlook totally failed for me and sent me to the Taurus X. The leg room wasn't as long. But more important, the seats were closer to the ground, so the seat was very uncomfortable for those with long legs, as the thighs weren't supported with the knees up in the air. My tall kids would hate it.

    Third Row Seats:
    The seats were about equal from what I recall. Neither was great but fine for people under 6' and acceptable for those my size. It was actually easier to get in with the Tarurus X folding seat. The sliders on the Outook were sticky and harder to manipulate compared to the T-X simple fold mechanism.

    My decision was to go with the Taurus-X as it had better leg room for all passengers, especially second row, and it was narrower and more manuveable than the Outlook.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    Wow...I guess my posts/opinions aren't totally nuts! ;)
  • vad1819vad1819 Posts: 309
    From your post if I'm right you're tested both cars with captain seat on second row. I heard that captain seats in GM' s CUV is not really comfy. I bought acadia with bench type, I like more even dealer give away for almost same price these vehicles.
    The seat sliding mechanism works very good after couple time do that. You have to just to know how to move it. The first time I couldn't even move it.
    I can't agree with statement, that third row almost same in both vehicles. In the Acadia more space there for you as adult. It's a leg, hip and shuolder room. Also, third row seat are not for adults in these vehicles, more for kids. But if you put two adult there in Acadia they will feel more comfy than in TX.
    Yet, the Acadia turning diameter is .4 ft more, because of bigger tires. So You can't say TX more manuveable than Outlook. According MT test Acadia performed same as CX_9 for MT figure eight - 28.2 sec, but Acura MDX - 27.4 sec
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    You're still using the size argument to categorize a vehicle.

    Your point is valid but all it means is it's bigger, not categorized differently.

    AWD, ground clearance, and elevated seating, those are better criteria than size. The TX/FX meets some, not all, of those.

    So it's in the gray area, and the reason why this thread gets 100+ posts a day. :D
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    That is a funny story, but....it says nothing at all about the benefits of a GPS.

    Bai Bo, the driver, simply failed to apply common sense.

    The story says "The driver had turned right, as the Global Positioning System advised, and the car somehow got stuck on the tracks at the crossing"

    Let's analyze the headline "GPS Device Blamed" part.

    A GPS doesn't advise people to merely turn right. For example, mine would say "turn right in 300 feet on to Route 27".

    It would also show you a map somewhat like this one:

    image

    BIG difference. The GPS did not say "turn right on to the train tracks in 250 feet".

    This is 100% driver error, he deserves the blame entirely.

    In fact if he had used the GPS properly, the map would have clearly shown the train tracks, and he could easily see that the road was AFTER the tracks.

    Intelligence is required to use a GPS.

    And to drive a car for that matter. He didn't notice he was on TRAIN TRACKS for crying out loud?

    The car "somehow got stuck"? DUH. Try staying on the road.

    100% driver error. Blaming the GPS is senstationalist journalism at its worst.

    Sad.
  • So I'm right! TX is a station wagon!!!

    Really I think though this class encompasses a large variety of vehicles, You can classify which is more station wagon like (and which is the most SUV like). In that sense, I think the TX is the most wagon like.


    Yes the TX is a station wagon, as is the Acadia. In modern terms they are also both CUVs. Using the proper definition of a station wagon one CUV... ummm I mean CUSW can not be more station wagon like than another. Here is the definition of a station wagon from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

    -------
    Main Entry: station wagon
    Function: noun
    Date: 1904
    : an automobile that has a passenger compartment which extends to the back of the vehicle, that has no trunk, that has one or more rear seats which can be folded down to make space for light cargo, and that has a tailgate or liftgate
    -------

    As you can see, all of the vehicles here fit this definition and therefore they are all in the same category. And for those that question the CUV status of the FS/TX because it uses the same platform as the 500/New Generation Taurus, you also may wish to note that this same platform is used for the Volvo XC90 SUV!

    - Chad
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    That's a pretty broad definition of a station wagon. One could argue that a mini-van is also a station wagon, as well as a van and all full size SUVs and hatch backs. Basically any vehicle that isn't a pickup and isn't a sedan would fall into the station wagon category. And the definition goes back to 1904 so it's a bit out of context in 2008.

    I'd argue that due to the TX being lower to the ground and giving a lower seating position it could be argued that it is a station wagon. When I look at it I think station wagon, I don't think, Bronco.

    -mike
  • cjsbcjsb Posts: 71
    My $.02 (Canadian currency - worth more! - wink) after comparing many of these vehicles along with a few others. Everything from Acura to Volkswagen and most of what sits between. I even shopped across the border in the States when prices made sense to do so.

    I spent eight months narrowing down my search for a vehicle with a third row that was not a minivan. I don't know what you would call that type of automobile...SUV? CUV? MPV? I only know my wife forbid me from the "minivan". All else was fair game.

    I was comfortable spending $50K but would just as easily been happy spending $30K. I simply wanted value and for the vehicle to meet as many of my criteria as possible. And I had lots. I had tables created that compared everything from ground clearance to insurance rates to torque availability to interior passenger dimensions to mileage to depreciation to safety ratings to sliding middle row distance to warranty coverage to decibles at highway speed to...you get the picture. I like to think I'm thorough. Others have said anal retentive.

    Seven months into my journey I had landed at the Acadia/Outlook or CX9. Both are fantastic IMO. However neither my wife or I could get past the "looks" of the CX9. I realize we are in the minority on this but we really don't like the exterior appearance. The CX7 looks great! But the 9? Not so much.

    So Acadia/Outlook it was. Or so we thought. Something didn't "feel" right to me. There were a few things standing in my way. Like some, I found the second row uncomfortable. And did we really need 202 inches? AWD was a $3K option (in Canada). And without bumping up the price significantly it lacked some of the creature comforts I was after like sterring wheel audio, all leather, dual exhaust - things I realize might mean zilch to others. But they were mildly important to me.

    At any rate, I eventually convinced myself to see past these arguably non-dealbreakers and on the first Saturday in December had half my signature down on a mocha coloured Saturn Outlook.

    And then on that Saturday Hyundai Canada increased its Manufacturer Rebate on the Veracruz to $5500 and a local dealer took another nearly $3000 off the MSRP if I was willing to pay cash. Done.

    The Veracruz had long been the one vehicle that met more of my criteria than any other. And most of what I had dug up in terms of test drives and reviews spoke highly of vehicle. Motortrend Mag. even chose it over the Lexus RX! But before the $8500 price break, it just didn't quite win the "value" equation I had created to finalize my decision.

    One month in and I'm extremely pleased with the choice. I've got my AWD six speed automatic 191 inch long whatever you call it with 8.1 inches of ground clearance, power sunroof, all leather, heated power seats, sliding second row, steering wheel audio controls, top notch safety rated, limousine quiet, best warranty in the business...vehicle with three rows that is not a minivan. Best bang for the buck for this humble car shopper.

    I know I come off sounding like a Hyundai salesman in these last couple paragraphs. Rest assured I'm not. I have zero loyalty to any car company. Maybe better stated as "equal" loyalty.

    I'll end my anecdote by saying most of the vehicles I looked at were excellent. And depending on each person's personal criteria one could make a very strong case for many of them...as has been done in this thread. Hard to go wrong really. And good thing we don't all choose the same whatever you call it. Keeps it interesting.

    Have fun with the search ladies and gentleman! It's a blast. I'll continue to enjoy reading your posts on the subject. Thanks for the great reading!

    Mark
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    But if you put two adult there in Acadia they will feel more comfy than in TX.

    Perhaps in your opinion, but larrygw already stated that the 3rd rows felt about equal to him, and that the TX was easier to enter the 3rd row. Mabye because of the better legroom or higher seating position?

    You can't say TX more manuveable than Outlook.
    Depends on your definition of "maneuverable" It's more than just turning circle and figure 8 test. You also have to do is test drive two vehicles and see which ones feels more maneuverable. When you're driving on the streets with cars around you, in parking lots, getting around tight spaces, etc, a wider vehicle can feel less maneuverable since because of the added bulk, you have less room to maneuver. Plus since the TX is lower to the ground, it feels more car-like in it's handling characteristics. I've seen several posts on how the Acadia is more SUV like and that the TX is more of a station wagon. Well, I'd say most cars handle better and are more maneuverable than an SUV, so if the FS/TX is more car-like and the Acadia more SUV-like, then that would also suggest that the FS/TX handles better and is more maneuverable. Maneuverability is sort of a combination of objective professional tests and subjective road tests.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    If the Freestyle is a wagon, name me one other wagon with three rows of forward facing seating?
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser
    Chevy Caprice Wagon

    I'm sure there are more that have come along through the ages.

    -mike
  • nxs138nxs138 Posts: 481
    You guys do get screwed on car prices in Canada, good job finding this deal. My dad was also looking at an Acadia/Outlook (he lives in Ottawa), but the Canadian prices are absolutely ridiculous, so he passed. I don't think they'll sell a lot of Lambdas in Canada, unless they bring on the rebates.

    The Veracruz is a good car. My wife and I still have it high on our list, since it does have nice driveability (a bit of body roll, but then again it's not a sports car), comfortable seats, decent cargo room behind the 3rd row. I only wish it had bluetooth built-in.

    I think the Veracruz got lost in the fray. It initially gathered attention with its Lexus comparisons, but then...nothing. Hyundai really screwed up their marketing, imo. focusing too much on the Lexus comparison and not enough on the other ammenities. Heck, I think I'm on firm ground stating that the Veracruz is better than the new Highlander (more room behind third row, better interior, split 3rd row seat), but I bet you that Highlander shoppers don't cross-shop the Veracruz, simply because they don't even know it exists.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    really...I didn't know they had forward facing 3rd rows. So you're saying that the TX/FS looks more like a Chevy Caprice Wagon or an Acadia? Actually, a Cadillic SRX looks like a big TX/FS.

    http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/Cadill- acSRX/Images/LeftRear2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/Cadillac- SRX/&h=450&w=600&sz=55&hl=en&start=7&um=1&tbnid=fnRKBQGVik--qM:&tbnh=101&tbnw=13- 5&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCadillac%2BSRX%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

    When you think about CUV seat height, you have regular cars (Accord, Camry, etc that all have low seating position, where you fall down into them. Then you have SUVs where you climb up into them. The TX/FS definitely has a higher seating position than an Accord, Malibu, Camry, but not as high as an SUV...hmmmm...the TX is between a car and SUV and it's NOT a CUV??
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    Here is a question, how is the seat height compared to a Tarus/Sable? Generally a Station Wagon has an equivalent sedan in the lineup to compliment it and is carlike. Perception is everything and I think a lot of folks percieve the TX as a wagon, not an SUV or CUV due to it's lowered height. Why would you get hung up if it were called a Station Wagon? I drive a Station Wagon myself and have no issue with it at all. I love the looks that muscle car guys give me when my LGT comes blasting around the turns on the road race course!

    And yes, one of our Oldsmobiles and Caprice wagons did have forward facing 3rd row.

    -mike
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    Why would you get hung up if it were called a Station Wagon?

    Why would you get hung up if it were called a CUV?

    If you were to do a comparison road test of the TX today, what other vehicles would you compare it to? a Caprice Classic wagon?
Sign In or Register to comment.