By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
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 I can also see that it was a little outdated from the start.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.