I'm sure the acceleration on any of these is more than adequate. People expecting a sports car should go elsewhere. There's no doubt in my mind that the Outlook/Acadia/Enclave is the best minivan alternative of the group, but I don't really "need" something that large. I will certainly test drive them, and if it turns out they have something besides just being larger, I'll probably go that route. In the meantime, the Veracruz looks the most appealing to me. It has less room but has the same or better ammenities and a better power-to-weight ratio.
I'm not a huge fan of the Freestyle, but I can see it's usefullness. I can also see that it was a little outdated from the start. For some people it's still a valid alternative though because despite its shortcomings, it still does what it is intended to do with better gas mileage than any of the competition.
Yes, the Veracruz really appears to to be a front runner as the real competition to the Outlook and the Acadia...with the CX-9 farely close behind. The only thing that attracted me to the Freestyle 2 years ago was the gas mileage and the 85 cubic foot cargo,which was still less than wanted. But the sluggishness wiped that glimmer of consideration out for me as I'd been driving sluggish for a long time at that point...plus with the sluggishness, I knew if I wanted to haul anything, down the road, it would be pretty futile.
The Veracruz only has 87 cu. ft. of storage, but it should be anything but sluggish with a power-to-weight ratio of 15.7 lbs./hp. Based on the Santa Fe's 3rd row, the 3rd row on the Veracruz should be fairly comfortable. Because of it's smaller size, it should be easy to maneuver and park. It can't compete with the CX-9 or Acadia/Outlook for pure storage space though.
Absolutely...I would have to consider a hitch carrier if I went the Veracruz route over the Outlook. Then I would have to drag every thing off the hitch carrier/roof rack and bring it in hotel/motel when those 1/2 doz. times p/yr nites arose. With the Outlook, I only have to roof rack the E-Z UP. And of course with the 'Ugly'(Van), I don't have to do any of this. However I have to drag those heavy-[non-permissible content removed] seats in and out a few times a year and I'm looking forward to eliminating that and not 'Vanning'around for 10 more years.
I believe they'll be priced similarly...It will get down to the on site apearance(rather than Photos), handling, the mpg data from a un-bias test report. One mpg difference is only a deal breaker if the evaluation/comparison on the other variables equal out.
The Veracruz will be a bit upmarket. From the Korean reviews that someone translated on another site, it sounds like the Veracruz is way upmarket from anything Hyundai has ever done here, including the Azera. In Korea, it's probably an equivalent to the Enclave, but who knows what it's going to be like here. I guess we'll have to wait until January for details. Hyundai has been fairly "hush-hush" about the Veracruz as opposed to the myriad of leaks there were with the Santa Fe.
The Outlook has the nod at this point and once it arrives and meets my criteria and lets say Veracruz does not show up for a while, I'm sure I'll just take the Outlook...but definately if they both arrive at similar times, they will both get equal attention. Though I think the Veracruz has a nice appearance, I'm more enamored with the looks of the Outlook. The cargo bay means a lot, yet the mpg too, which I'm guessing, goes to the Veracruz. It'll be a fun exercise for me, especially after 10 years. I was going to do this 2 years ago...but knew something better had to come along and now feeling pretty good about the exercise of patients I have endured.
From what I've seen, the Veracruz is supposed to be out in March. They are waiting until the last minute to relase it to the public. They've producing it in Korea since last month. As far as the Lambda styling goes, I think you get what you pay for. The Outlook is my least favorite, followed by the Acadia, then the Enclave. I like the Veracruz better for styling than all but the Enclave. For a first time entry into the 3 row crossover market, GM has certainly overachieved in comparison to other companies first entries.
I guess that one of the real disadvantages to big CUVs (even the big ones like the lambda) is that even though on the outside they're as big as a minivan, they're not nearly as spacious as a minivan on the inside. The third row of a minivan has about 40" of legroom as compared to the lambdas 33", and the cargo space behind the 3rd row of a minivan is about 40CuFt vs 20CuFt for a lambda. When you fold down the 3rd row you get 91CuFt vs 69CuFt. And the exterior dimensions are the same, or even less if you're counting height, then a big CUVs like the lambas.
If you don't need that much space that that's fine and a big CUV is a good choice, but if every time you want to go on a trip you need to load the roof or attach a hitch to the CUV, and then at every hotel drag all that stuff into the room, then I'd rather just have the minivan with more interior space. But again, that's the sacrifice CUV owners will make to avoid the minivan stigma.
The same can be said about SUVs, but then the SUV owners were sacrificing interior space of a minivan for offroad capability that a minivan can't offer. With a CUV, other than style and lack of minivan stigma, I'm not sure what the owner of a CUV is gaining over a minivan. Handling with some of the more sporty CUVs. AWD, although you can get that on a Sienna.
That's why I think that in the long run it will be the smaller and sportier CUVs that really do well, at least in the long run. I'm sure that there will be a lot of folks getting these big CUVs for a year or so and moving back to the minivan because of the interior space.
On the other hand, I think that the real CUV customer will be those currently driving the big SUVs who really have no need for off-road capability. For them, the big CUVs will be perfect because they'll have the space of a big SUV without all of the downsides of driving those giant SUVs.
The big benefit over SUVs will not only be MPG but much more usable interior room. SUVs have huge compromises to put the off-road suspensions under the vehicles. The back seat of a Suburban is just plain tight and uncomfortable where the rear seat of a Lamda is almost the same comfort and room as the 2nd row. The floor is way off the ground for ground clearance. Also the ingress/egress of the lower Lamda will be so much better than a SUV. No running boards needed. YOu will also be able to walk around in the Lamda like a minivan. Cannot do that in a Suburban. No, I do not see any Lamda buyers going back to a suburban unless they buy a travel trailer!
Again I wish I could find the dimension from inside floor to inside roof of these vehicles. I can measure a suburban!
The third row of a minivan has about 40" of legroom as compared to the lambdas 33",
Not sure where you got the dimensions but in comparing a Chevy Uplander to a Acadia you get for legroom:
.........front center rear Uplander..40......37.5...34.3 Acadia....41......37.....33.2
Actually almost the same and I bet the difference is that the Acadia has thicker back cushions than the Uplander. Now I see the Saturn Relay has 36.2" of 3rd row room. Not sure why the difference between the two vans. i thought they shared the same seats except for covers but still not that much difference.
The Honda Odyssey is a little bigger at 39.2/39.6/38.4. The Toyota Sienna is even bigger at 42.9/39.6/39.5. The biggest of all is the Nissan Quest at 41.7/42.1/39.6. They meet his description a bit better. I think the Uplander just has a pretty long hood.
Cars.com comparing an odyssey legroom(40.8/40.0/41.1) or sienna to an acadia. Cars.com matches the specs shown on the honda webpage. Actually 38.4CuFt cargo behind row 3 for the odyssey, but more for the sienna. Probably why Odyssey & Sienna are consistently rated the best minivans, with the Kia coming up close and just as big inside. But that's why I said the the big SUV owners will go more for the lambdas because they'll get about the same space, or more, with a smaller and more sporty package.
Makes more sense. GM's minivans were intially designed to work in Europe so the were made a bit smaller than the other here. Of course Europe did not want them so they compromised for nothing.
Actually, GM's minivans are pretty long in anything but base form. They are nearly the longest out of all the minivans at 204" long. The base model with the shorter wheelbase is 191".
I have mixed views on the Enclave and did'nt want to say any thing negitive, and not because it is out of my price range. I think it's design could be a huge success(and it may be) or it could be one of those designs that are just a smiggin over the top, as a wanna be to lexus/BMW/MB/etc, and bounces off and lands in a precarious spot unto itself. Personally, If it were in my price range, I would go more conservative and take the loaded Outlook or Acadia version.
Ah, that is the power of more than one division. I would take the Enclave over either of the other two in a second at almost any reasonable cost. It just is drop dead gorgeous. Not sure why it is a wannabe. Buick in the past was known for expressive styling. It has been just the last 30 years that they have not had many stylistic vehicles. The 53 was a wonderful vehicle in its time. As were many of the vehicles in the 60's. All I am saying is that Buick will hopefully go back to a premium styled division and the LaCrosse/Lucerne/Enclaves are a great start.
Well...I hope you're right, because I remember those days. Unfortunatetly those were those days and these are these days. I'm not totally counting them out...but it's a tough group out there in that class and Buick was not facing quite the onslaught of these competitors in those years. I'm truly hoping it gets its fair share for sure. But many may find it a dressed up Lambda, rather than a one of a kind design as many of its competitors have.
Unfortunately those GM vans are extremely narrower(5-6") than most all its peers, except for the little Mazda MPV. Maybe that is GMs eventual strategy...replace its van and offer a Lambda(only 17 less cu ft of cargo space)or an 'Astro'..?.. maybe not even offer an Astro type.
All GM minivans(Buick/Saturn/SV6) are soon to be gone except the Chevrolet version. Most likely the next minivan (probably Chevy only) will be a lamda with sliding doors.
Hasn't anyone noticed the greater bargain you can get with an '07 Suzuki XL-7 over the new Acadia/Outlook CUVs? Nobody has mentioned this yet. Maybe its not yet well known. The XL-7 has the same great 3.6L V6, and is almost as big, weighs somewhat less, and is faster. You could save about $7,000 dollars buying an XL-7 over an Acadia!
You think the outlook's big? You know the CX9 is same size right(just sayin')? The Vera Cruz really is a strong competitor to these things-unless third row space isn't great. THe sante Fe was a suprise, but this could be one too. I've been wrong about third row space before (Nissan Armada). I just don't like the styling that much. It's awkward to me. I'm not just a die hard SUV styling person- I love MDX and Q7-It's just wierd to me and ever since the wife had a Hyundai, they've seemed a step down in class to me. But we'll see. True even though though lamdas have huge cargo space, they are short 20cu of minivans. But they're 2-5 inches shorter than minivans, and I'll sacrafice 20cu and 4in 3rd row space for a smaller package, and a good looking SUV will great power! Really no sacrifice. And Lay off those Freestyle hating comments. Freestyle is legitament (though a little disadvantaged ) competitor(happy Bob?!). That guy can't really get 27 on the highway, can he? Minivans don't get that! it's rated like 18/24 right?
But XL7 doesn't look as good, loses over 20 cu ft cargo space, and over 20 hp. But you're right. Legitimate competitor. We've discussed it before. I think instead of Chevy lamda, They should put chevy body panels on this (no gold cross transplatn, please! Real, good looking Chevy make over.) Then they could get rid of that clumsy, humongous, ugly Trailblazer XL! I don't think Suzuki is faster than lambdas, though. Doubt it goes 0-60 in 7.3 sec (do lambdas really do this?Amazing!)
If you don't need that much space that that's fine and a big CUV is a good choice, but if every time you want to go on a trip you need to load the roof or attach a hitch to the CUV, and then at every hotel drag all that stuff into the room, then I'd rather just have the minivan with more interior space. But again, that's the sacrifice CUV owners will make to avoid the minivan stigma.
Actually, it should be easier to travel in one of these because there's so much cargo space you don't need a roof rack (and those things are terrible for gas and bulky!) Plus in every minivan, but the dodge grandcaravan, you have to take out 2nd row seats, unlike lamdas, losing cargo flexibility. And like I said, you only lose like 20 cu ft of space. And it's said that performance in these things is really good for their size. You say you'd rather be driving a minivan, but don't you have a freestyle?
Back to those details! When i stepped into the dealership, the blue crossover smacked me in the face, and I tried to critique it hard, but had to admit it looked good, especially sitting on those 19inch chromes. After 2 walk arounds, I couldn't help but get in.it was nice inside. Very comfortable. It wasn't the model with captain's chairs- that was my only turn off. other than that, It was loaded-an SLT. Second row space was great until the seat was pulled all the way up, then a little cramped, but good for kids (I'm 6'2). THird row with seat all the way forward was good, and not bad all the way back. Wouldn't want to be back there more than 3 hours, but great for kids. After seeing Acadia, went to sit in Freestyle, Pilot, and XC90, and PAcifica. Acadia outscored all of these third rows in my oppinion, but it was a real plus that seats three across. Doesn't look that big from outside (Envoy near it and looked a little smaller). Overall I grade it well. i truely think it would be the best thing on the market at launch, and for interior space you'd have to compare to Suburban or minivans.
How was the floor, was it flat front to rear? Do the seats fold flat to the floor? Did it seem very boxy inside? Did the rear wheelwells intrude into the interior?
The Acadia is a little bigger (wider) than a CX-9, and just about any other CUV out there:
Exterior: CX-9...Edge...Freestyle...Acadia Length 199.6 in. 185.7 in. 199.8 in. 200.7 in. Width 76.2 in. 75.8 in. 74.4 in. 78.2 in. Height 68.1 in. 67 in. 65.9 in. 72.8 in. Weight 4312 lbs. 4073 lbs. 3900 lbs. 4722 lbs. Wheel Base 113.2 in. 111.2 in. 112.9 in. 118.9 in. Ground Clearance Being Researched 8 in. 8 in. 7.4 in. Interior CX-9 Edge Freestyle Acadia Front Headroom 39.6 in. 40 in. 39.4 in. 40.4 in. Rear Headroom 38.8 in. 39.3 in. 39.4 in. 39.3 in. Front Shoulder Room 59.4 in. 58.9 in. 58.5 in. 61.9 in. Rear Shoulder Room 58.7 in. 58.8 in. 57.9 in. 61.1 in. Front Hip Room 56.5 in. 54.8 in. 55.5 in. 57.8 in. Rear Hip Room 56 in. 56.1 in. 55.8 in. 57.9 in. Front Leg Room 40.9 in. 40.7 in. 41.2 in. 41.3 in. Rear Leg Room 39.8 in. 38.1 in. 40.2 in. 36.9 in. Maximum Luggage Capacity 17.2 cu.ft. 32.1 cu.ft. 17.6 cu.ft. 19.7 cu.ft. Maximum Seating 7 5 7 8
albook in #832 said: "...That guy can't really get 27 on the highway, can he?..."
Yes, over about 2,400 miles, my Freestyle 2WD model got 26.8 MPG. I couldn't believe it myself, so I checked the odometer calibration and it was within 1%. On one trip from Colorado to Kansas City, with 4 adults plus luggage and cruising an average of 73 mph on I-70, we got 27 MPG. The EPA estimates for it are 20 city / 27 highway, so the tests are true. A Honda Odyssey minivan should get about the same (displacement-on-demand engine). The Acadia/Outlook/Enclave should get within 1 MPG of the Freestyle (26 highway rating) in a much heavier vehicle, amazing for its class.
reply to #833: The key is that XL-7 is a lot cheaper, for most of the performance and size of the Acadia. If money means nothing, the Acadia is the winner.
How was the floor, was it flat front to rear? Do the seats fold flat to the floor? Did it seem very boxy inside? Did the rear wheelwells intrude into the interior?
You probably already mentioned this since nobody else seems suprised, but how again were you able to step inside an Acadia? You say at a dealership? Where?
in Stl. MO, I went to Belmann conversion van place. dealership- only dealership in mo to have it until it comes to market. They could be ordered right there, too. it was just sitting on the floor- which amazed me! It was like it was already for sale. I expected it to be that red one you've seen in pictures, but it wasn't. and yes, load floor is flat- and humongous. I encourage everyone to go see it at launch (which should be mid december).
Looking at the dimensions above it looks like the Outlook is bigger than the CX-9 abut 2" in every dimension except rear legroom. CS-9 is listed as higher. However when I look at photos I do not know how this can be. Look at the attached. The rear door on the Mazda goes halfway into the rear wheel well while the rear door on the Saturn is about 6" forward of the rear wheel well opening. I know the Saturn has a longer wheel base but not 2.5'. So I jsut wonder how the Mazda is listed with more legroom.
Seat Thickness, floor depth, firewall location, third seat closer to the tailgate, length of passenger compartment are all determinants of total legroom.
albook, how was the second row seat room when the bench was slid all the way back? I rarely ever use the third row, so first and second row legroom is my priority, which is why I am attracted to these CUVs with their adjustable second row.
It could be some of that creative measuring method that can be obviously used or manipulated to favor their own product line...pushing seats forward and backwards to meet their own needs. How does this occur when the cargo bay of the CX-9 area is so much smaller than Outlook's...maybe ceative engineering too...Believe ACG will get to the bottom of this and will go with their figures, if they choose to provide this data.
That is a laugh!! That is what I was trying to get across. Again in looking at the pictures it looks like the Outlook has a lot more length between the driver seat and the rear most glass. Now perhaps the Outlook has real thick seat backs? Or perhaps the CX-9 will use new seats with web seat-backs?
I'm looking at pictures and I see a much more functional cargo area for the Outlook. Quibbling over minimal/ questionable measurements is just a big circle jerk. Honestly doubt CX-9 holds any advantage in seating/cargo(for sure)/comfort- shoulder room and etc. I'm not anti Mazda, but would not wait to test drive it before buying Outlook, having had a good test drive in one, from the material presented. But if it arrives in same time frame, I would give it a solid look, behind a Veracruz, eventhough Veracruz should have less cargo area. The CX-9 will be at least as expensive as the Outlook with no indication of mpg advantage.
crossover2, The CX-9 is about $1,000 cheaper than an Acadia. The Acadia gets better fuel economy by about 1 or 2 MPG than a CX-9. Forget it all, buy a Suzuki XL-7, and save big bucks. I predict slow sales for the Acadia/Outlook/Enclave, since a starting price of $30,000 is just too much for volume sales.
The Suzuki Xl-7 is just a minimally stretched Equinox(with aditional 65mph)and the Euqinox only has 68 cu ft cargo room, plus it is rated in the bottom half of mid-size SUVs in Consumer Guides ratings. If considering the Xl-7, I think the brand new Santa Fe, with 78 Cu ft cargo(same or better thanXl-7)and a better mpg would be the superior choice. But thank you for the suggestion, as it is attractive enough.
XL-7 is a full framed off-road capable SUV that will get less than 22 mpg. Does not have the interior space of the Lamdas. Yes it will hold 7 but not 8. XL-7 will have a market but it will not be the same as the Lambdas. More like a Trailblazer XL than a Lamda. Seats do not fold flat either.
Oh, and I forgot the Acadia - people absolutely LOVED it! From the interior space and versatility to the looks, people were saying so many complimentary things. The Saturn version (what is it, the Outlook?) was locked, not open, but people were very interested in it.
How do I delete my message!!!! Wow, I am way off. Right vehicle, wrong year.
But, still a much smaller vehicle than the Lamdas and MPG is only up a couple to 24 highway. Still not a real contender for those who need a large people/stuff hauler. This is a good vehicle for someone who needs a more economical mid size CUV. In fact may meet my needs most fo the time. But then again I sometimes have to really pack in my truck.
Most children will have ample room in the optional third row, though second-row legroom is merely average. Unlike in the Equinox, the second-row seat is not fore/aft adjustable as it must now fold and flip to provide access to the third row.
As you'd expect, there's precious little cargo room available with the third-row seat in use. But with the headrests removed, the 50/50 sections fold flat into the floor, opening up considerably more room, though Suzuki has not yet released a cargo capacity figure.
Comments
I'm sure the acceleration on any of these is more than adequate. People expecting a sports car should go elsewhere. There's no doubt in my mind that the Outlook/Acadia/Enclave is the best minivan alternative of the group, but I don't really "need" something that large. I will certainly test drive them, and if it turns out they have something besides just being larger, I'll probably go that route. In the meantime, the Veracruz looks the most appealing to me. It has less room but has the same or better ammenities and a better power-to-weight ratio.
I'm not a huge fan of the Freestyle, but I can see it's usefullness. I can also see that it was a little outdated from the start. For some people it's still a valid alternative though because despite its shortcomings, it still does what it is intended to do with better gas mileage than any of the competition.
in and out a few times a year and I'm looking forward to eliminating that and not 'Vanning'around for 10 more years.
I believe they'll be priced similarly...It will get down to the on site apearance(rather than Photos), handling, the mpg data from a un-bias test report. One mpg difference is only a deal breaker if the evaluation/comparison on the
other variables equal out.
and meets my criteria and lets say Veracruz does not show up for a while, I'm sure I'll just take the Outlook...but definately if they both arrive at similar times, they will both get equal attention. Though I think the Veracruz has a nice appearance, I'm more enamored with the looks of the Outlook. The cargo bay means a lot, yet the mpg too, which I'm guessing, goes to the Veracruz. It'll be a fun exercise for me, especially after 10 years. I was going to do this 2 years ago...but knew something better had to come along and now feeling pretty good about the exercise of patients I have endured.
If you don't need that much space that that's fine and a big CUV is a good choice, but if every time you want to go on a trip you need to load the roof or attach a hitch to the CUV, and then at every hotel drag all that stuff into the room, then I'd rather just have the minivan with more interior space. But again, that's the sacrifice CUV owners will make to avoid the minivan stigma.
The same can be said about SUVs, but then the SUV owners were sacrificing interior space of a minivan for offroad capability that a minivan can't offer. With a CUV, other than style and lack of minivan stigma, I'm not sure what the owner of a CUV is gaining over a minivan. Handling with some of the more sporty CUVs. AWD, although you can get that on a Sienna.
That's why I think that in the long run it will be the smaller and sportier CUVs that really do well, at least in the long run. I'm sure that there will be a lot of folks getting these big CUVs for a year or so and moving back to the minivan because of the interior space.
On the other hand, I think that the real CUV customer will be those currently driving the big SUVs who really have no need for off-road capability. For them, the big CUVs will be perfect because they'll have the space of a big SUV without all of the downsides of driving those giant SUVs.
Again I wish I could find the dimension from inside floor to inside roof of these vehicles. I can measure a suburban!
Not sure where you got the dimensions but in comparing a Chevy Uplander to a Acadia you get for legroom:
.........front center rear
Uplander..40......37.5...34.3
Acadia....41......37.....33.2
Actually almost the same and I bet the difference is that the Acadia has thicker back cushions than the Uplander. Now I see the Saturn Relay has 36.2" of 3rd row room. Not sure why the difference between the two vans. i thought they shared the same seats except for covers but still not that much difference.
Unfortunatetly those were those days and these are these
days. I'm not totally counting them out...but it's a tough group out there in that class and Buick was not facing quite the onslaught of these competitors in those years. I'm truly hoping it gets its fair share for sure. But many may find it a dressed up Lambda, rather than a one of a kind design as many of its competitors have.
than most all its peers, except for the little Mazda MPV.
Maybe that is GMs eventual strategy...replace its van and offer a Lambda(only 17 less cu ft of cargo space)or an
'Astro'..?.. maybe not even offer an Astro type.
Actually, it should be easier to travel in one of these because there's so much cargo space you don't need a roof rack (and those things are terrible for gas and bulky!) Plus in every minivan, but the dodge grandcaravan, you have to take out 2nd row seats, unlike lamdas, losing cargo flexibility. And like I said, you only lose like 20 cu ft of space. And it's said that performance in these things is really good for their size. You say you'd rather be driving a minivan, but don't you have a freestyle?
link title
Hey, I like the looks of my Envoy XL. Sure wish I could have waited for an Enclave though. Next time!
Exterior: CX-9...Edge...Freestyle...Acadia
Length 199.6 in. 185.7 in. 199.8 in. 200.7 in.
Width 76.2 in. 75.8 in. 74.4 in. 78.2 in.
Height 68.1 in. 67 in. 65.9 in. 72.8 in.
Weight 4312 lbs. 4073 lbs. 3900 lbs. 4722 lbs.
Wheel Base 113.2 in. 111.2 in. 112.9 in. 118.9 in.
Ground Clearance Being Researched 8 in. 8 in. 7.4 in.
Interior CX-9 Edge Freestyle Acadia
Front Headroom 39.6 in. 40 in. 39.4 in. 40.4 in.
Rear Headroom 38.8 in. 39.3 in. 39.4 in. 39.3 in.
Front Shoulder Room 59.4 in. 58.9 in. 58.5 in. 61.9 in.
Rear Shoulder Room 58.7 in. 58.8 in. 57.9 in. 61.1 in.
Front Hip Room 56.5 in. 54.8 in. 55.5 in. 57.8 in.
Rear Hip Room 56 in. 56.1 in. 55.8 in. 57.9 in.
Front Leg Room 40.9 in. 40.7 in. 41.2 in. 41.3 in.
Rear Leg Room 39.8 in. 38.1 in. 40.2 in. 36.9 in.
Maximum Luggage Capacity 17.2 cu.ft. 32.1 cu.ft. 17.6 cu.ft. 19.7 cu.ft.
Maximum Seating 7 5 7 8
Yes, over about 2,400 miles, my Freestyle 2WD model got 26.8 MPG. I couldn't believe it myself, so I checked the odometer calibration and it was within 1%. On one trip from Colorado to Kansas City, with 4 adults plus luggage and cruising an average of 73 mph on I-70, we got 27 MPG. The EPA estimates for it are 20 city / 27 highway, so the tests are true. A Honda Odyssey minivan should get about the same (displacement-on-demand engine). The Acadia/Outlook/Enclave should get within 1 MPG of the Freestyle (26 highway rating) in a much heavier vehicle, amazing for its class.
Have you tried looking at a on-line picture?
link title
One of these shows a interior shot from the back with all the seats folded FLAT!
http://www.saturn.com/saturn/vehicles/outlook/photoGallery.jsp
http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=upcomingCX9&bhc- p=1
The CX-9 is more efficient.
That is a laugh!! That is what I was trying to get across. Again in looking at the pictures it looks like the Outlook has a lot more length between the driver seat and the rear most glass. Now perhaps the Outlook has real thick seat backs? Or perhaps the CX-9 will use new seats with web seat-backs?
Try to figure it out by comparing the delta in cargo room when the 2nd seat and 3rd seat are down..............
Well maybe you'd better wait a month or two.
http://4wheeldrive.about.com/cs/suzukireviews/a/aa050603a.htm
nippononly, "GM: General Model View, Market Share & Profit News" #170, 19 Nov 2006 11:42 pm
Oh, and I forgot the Acadia - people absolutely LOVED it! From the interior space and versatility to the looks, people were saying so many complimentary things. The Saturn version (what is it, the Outlook?) was locked, not open, but people were very interested in it.
But, still a much smaller vehicle than the Lamdas and MPG is only up a couple to 24 highway. Still not a real contender for those who need a large people/stuff hauler. This is a good vehicle for someone who needs a more economical mid size CUV. In fact may meet my needs most fo the time. But then again I sometimes have to really pack in my truck.
Most children will have ample room in the optional third row, though second-row legroom is merely average. Unlike in the Equinox, the second-row seat is not fore/aft adjustable as it must now fold and flip to provide access to the third row.
As you'd expect, there's precious little cargo room available with the third-row seat in use. But with the headrests removed, the 50/50 sections fold flat into the floor, opening up considerably more room, though Suzuki has not yet released a cargo capacity figure.