Howdy, Stranger!

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





Crossover SUV Comparison

1264265267269270355

Comments

  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    Wow! how do you turn that down? That's awesome!

    I Iove the Chicago autoshow. It's the biggest space wise in the US. The McCormic Center is so big you can drive Chrysler's entire line up in the building (!) but the lines so long I wouldn't reccomend it. There is so much to do there. Me, one or two of my brothers, and sometimes my older boys go up for a weekend. The city is awesome, too. Not as fun as LA, but still a lot to do.

    I don't think there will be any new CUVs, really there's a lot less hype to this year's show than last years.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    And a spy in the building? Thats not how Toyota does it (yet it gets done).

    Ummm, you've seen the new Highlander right? It's a joke compared to every other CUV compared in this thread. I'd say that's only my opinion but I'm sure many others agree. I admit I never liked Toyota very much, but they've been slipping big time lately.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    Ford was lazy becuase they couldn't spend time to develop a proper CUV, and now they are paying for it with slow sales.


    Whoa, whoa, whoa there albook. They developed small CUVs first and they are selling well. Their full size CUV comes out later this year and it is based on the same Volvo platform as the TX. The TX is now more or less a space filler until the Flex and next Explorer are on sale at the same time. The TX goes away after those two are in full swing.

    I don't agree that they were lazy, but rather chose a different path. Is GM being lazy because they have no mid-size CUV like the Edge? I do think they are being lazy by offering us 4 iterations of the same thing though. You could argue that the Enclave is different enough to not fit with the other 3 (I'm including the soon to be Chevy version) but it's not it is a night and day difference.

    The lambdas are some of the heaviest vehicles in the class, yet they get some of the best mpg numbers. That's smart engineering.

    Or it's because they have an extra cog in the tranny than some of the others. ;)
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    Give me any example of good engineering from Ford from current years.
    Explorer used same platform for last 20 years.
    Edge - Mazda 5
    Expedition - see Explorer
    F-150 see Explorer
    Focus = Escort
    TX wagon and even worst - using Volvo platform.
    Fusion - Mazda again.
    Oh one engineering V-8 engine for Mustang.
    Even GT went wrong way.


    Wow vad. Not even one right on that list. Unfortunately this is not the place to start that discussion. But I do suggest you do some research before making such blind and incorrect statements.

    One thing I'd like to point out is that you praised the Volvo XC90 several posts back. Now you're knocking the FS/TX for using the same exact platform? :confuse:
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    Though they have greatly dissapointed me lately, I give Ford more credit than that. I like the current F-150- much better than the new one. I strongly dislike the bulky look of both the Explorer and Expedition, but I think the Edge did a decent job. I like the Fusion (yes Mazda) but I have no clue what Ford was thinking about the 500. It doesn't have to be as flashy and good looking as the 300/Charger-not everyone can do that- but it can't even keep up with something like a Lucerne or an Avalon. You look at the car and you can feel the plain, lacklusterness. People rave about how big it is inside, but it's narrow, and the ride isn't great. Changing it to the Taurus and giving it the ugly shaving razor grille was worse, but they gave it a little power. Then of cousre there is the Mustang- the only Ford I would buyright now. I don't think the Challenger and Camaro even measure up to that.

    I look at the Edge, then I look at the TX, and I wonder how could the same company produce these two vehicles.To tell the truth, they are both decent, but the Edge has a real market. You can see where Ford was going with it. And it fits it's segment (competes with Murano and Equinox). But with the TX- especially when it was the FS, there is no efffort at all. They took the already boring 500, and made it a station wagon with a decent third row. Really the package is decent (especially after they gave it some power) but that's not where the market was ever going. We see that in the fate of the Pacifica and R class. But using the Volvo platform was a great move for safety. I'm not totally sure why Ford's getting rid of them.

    Vad- although we don't always totally agree, at least I don't try to falsey complement or befriend you then take badly about you.
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    Ummm, you've seen the new Highlander right?

    If you're saying Toyota didn't copy this design, you are probably right. I think Toyota didn't spend anytime on this because they got cocky and said "it's a Toyota. People will buy it!" And it seems to be biting them in the- it seems to be biting them back.
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    The TX is now more or less a space filler until the Flex and next Explorer are on sale at the same time. The TX goes away after those two are in full swing.

    Now it is, but in '04, there were no plans for the Flex (the Fairlane don't even exist) and Fors thought the Explorer was fine the way it was. FS wasn't just a spot filler in Ford's garage then.

    Is GM being lazy because they have no mid-size CUV like the Edge?

    The equinox was out years before the Edge. You could say it's outdated, but that's because it's time for a remodel.

    I do think they are being lazy by offering us 4 iterations of the same thing though.

    I am mad at GM for that. But you have to admit at least it's 3 -er- 4 of a good vehicle unlike the G5. Ford has severalofferings like this. Did they really have to clone the Fusion twice?

    Or it's because they have an extra cog in the tranny than some of the others.

    Hey- at least they get the mpgs. And the tranny feels much better now.
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    Have you checked out the Volvo XC90?

    I'm not a big fan of the XC. Originally it was nice, but it's a first generation 3 row CUV, and it's age has been showing for a while.
  • Let's not point out that the TX has no groundclearance

    That's sorta the POINT of a CUV . .. get it closer to the ground so it handles more like a car.
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    That's sorta the POINT of a CUV . .. get it closer to the ground so it handles more like a car.

    Definitely not the ppoint of a CUV. CUVsare suppossed to act like an SUV and have it's perks (like ground clearnce). That is the point of a station wagon.
  • "agree. the acadia big truck. TX is more wagon size, and of course it's lighter. But it's not interferes with driving abilities. I don't have any problems with the quick changing lanes. It has enough power."

    acadia/FS-TreX - both FWD models

    Front track width 67.10/64.6
    Ground clearance 7.40/5.1
    Overall length 200.70/200.1
    Overall width 78.20/74.9
    Overall height, without luggage rack 69.90/68.2
    Rear track width 67.10/65
    Wheelbase 118.90/112.9
    curb weight 4722lbs/3959lbs(FS weight quoted)

    so using your logic and applying a dose of dimensional reality then indeed you and I BOTH are either driving "wagon sized" vehicles or "big truck" like vehicles, which will it be today as I'm more curious than anything?

    based on exterior dimensions your assertion falls on its face, based on weight, I'll take wagon sized every day of the week.
  • jimmy2xjimmy2x Posts: 124
    That (Volvo) is something I hadn't even thought about. Heading down to the Philly Auto Show today and will take a look,
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    Like i said before, these two aren't too far off in exterior dimensions. The FS isn't as small a s some claim. The big difference comes in width.

    Based on the interior size of the two, I'd take big truck in a heartbeat.
  • vad1819vad1819 Posts: 309
    I'm not knocking Volvo, my point is the ford have not design any new platform for past several years. It's using partner companies car platforms. That's my point. Where GM is at least build something new - Lambda platform.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    Ummm, you've seen the new Highlander right? It's a joke compared to every other CUV compared in this thread. I'd say that's only my opinion but I'm sure many others agree. I admit I never liked Toyota very much, but they've been slipping big time lately.

    Actually it's a perfect size for a family of 4 who on occasion need to carpool a couple more kids. Not everyone is looking for the biggest thing out there.
  • vad1819vad1819 Posts: 309
    Let's not come back to this argue again. TX and Cadillac SRX is wagon base model.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    hey baggs...I think you're wasting your time responding to that post...just smile and move on ;)
  • vad1819vad1819 Posts: 309
    R u taking about me?
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    CUVsare suppossed to act like an SUV and have it's perks (like ground clearnce).
    I don't think so. That's why the call it a CROSSover, because it's a CROSS between a car, SUV and minivan. A CUV is not designed to act like an SUV, but have some general SUV (AWD), some general minivan (space) traits.
  • vad1819vad1819 Posts: 309
    CUV - Crossover UTILITY Vehicle. So it should act like utility vehicle at least.
    So TX and SRX are wagons.
Sign In or Register to comment.