Crossover SUV Comparison

ateixeira

I agree about the leather in the Veracruz, it's top notch. Put some leather in competitors to shame.

Ironically, it even puts the leather in the Hyundai Entourage to shame.

They just used a much higher grade of leather for the VC. I was impressed, too. In fact I'll go out on a limb and say it had the most comfortable driver's seat of anything I considered.

Hyundai is marching upscale, perhaps preparing folks for the Genesis flagship sedan. That way people won't gawk then they see price tags well over $30 grand.

vad1819

"I think if you look at a lambda, TX and Pacifica that it would seem to me that the lambda looks more simliar inside (2nd row bench, good cargo space behind 3rd row, etc then the Pacifica. On the other hand, one can have the opinion (like you does) that the Pacifica was the first early form of CUV, although I think that the FS roots come turning the Explorer into a CUV"

I see where you’re going. You want to say, Pacifica first CUV, but TX came from Explorer and lambdas copied your lovely TX. So you’re going be wrong here.
The success of lambdas, even they have some technical problems, compared to TX (even both vehicle close to volume space inside), that theGM was looking for US market, where Ford look more for European market. In US is car like a truck more popular than a wagon. It’s one of reasons the Pacifica have not succeed in the market. GM’s lambdas compete with Highlander and Pilot, where TX competes alone. I can say GM copied more Highlander platform, rather the TX. I have read one of the articles in internet (don’t remember), people who is on market for CUV, have bought GM’s lambdas because it is one of the best alternative to Highlander on market.

bobw3

lovely TX
relax, it's just a car

On numerous occasions my FS has been mistake for an Explorer, but if you conisder my FS as more "European" I have no problem with that...yeah, my FS European Sports Wagon...sounds better than CUV anyway!

baggs32

I know they are a dealer option- but dealer option is still an option.

Boy, you hit the nail on the head there albook! Hey, did you also know that the TX comes with a 6.4L Hemi V8, 4-wheel steering, Brembo 6-piston disc brakes, Italian leather, 22" wheels, and a self-leveling suspension?

All optional of course. We'll call them "Foose" options, but they're still options.

vad1819

We had some fun. It's good.
I'm glad your got my humor.

baggs32

Looking through Detroit Auto show picks and the Pilot looks terrible to me. Is this Honda's new design theme? Ugly with a touch of futuristic?

I thought the same thing when I first saw it. My wife actually likes it which scares me a little. :surprise:

However, after looking at some more pics I found one that was taken head on with the front (I had to link it because it is too big for this page/site). You can almost see where they might be going with the production model when you look at it that way. Maybe some headlamps that are a cross beween the MDX and Accord and a slightly toned down grille and it could look fairly decent. I like, not love, the rest of the vehicle from the front wheels back so if they can improve the face a bit I wouldn't mind driving one for a couple of years. The real kicker will be the engines. If the diesel V6 is available by late Spring 2009 then this may very well be our next vehicle.

wlbrown9

" But the point was the Pacifica defined and started the crossover class. What happened after that is just copy and modify. "

Now wait just a dang minute. I did a little research...Volvo XC90 shows up in 2003 Edmunds as a 7 passenger SUV. FS IIRC was built on the XC90 base. Pacificia does not show up until 2004. So, my way of thinking is that Ford adapted the XC90 frame to the FS for the 2005 model year. Also, Highlander shows to be 7 passenger in 2004 (5 passenger before that) which is the same model year the Pacificia shows up. That makes it real hard for me to accept that "Pacifica defined and started the crossover class" even if you are limiting it to more that 5 passenger. If you consider 5 passenger car like/SUV/CUV the Lexus RX showed up about 1999, Murano 2003 and Highlander 2001.

aviboy97

Have you seen the movie "Short Circuit"? Looks like the robot "Johnny 5" :shades:

bobw3

To come to the defense of the Pacifica, the Highlander was always considered a SUV, as was the Volvo, Murano and Lexus. I agree that the Pacifica was the first "Crossover" around in that it defied the SUV tag yet wasn't a traditional station wagon. I remember when it first came out nobody knew what to review it against, until the FS came out. My only contention was that the FS is more in the mode of today's CUVs, even if the Pacifica was the first to confuse the car reviewers because there weren't any CUVs out there.

I look at the Mazda 5 as being another trend setter, that was alone until the Kia Rondo came out.

wlbrown9

I would have to argue that the Murano and Lexus RX are CUV, non-frame, non-truck based SUVs...5 passenger, but still CUV. I don't consider the Pacificia or FS to be much more that wagons. If I had to classify as wagon or SUV, it would be wagon. When I look at either one of these, I think wagon not car based SUV.

freealfas

what you are ALL forgetting is the ugly stepchild that predated the pacifica even, the vaunted buick rendevouz and it's aztek cousin. I got schooled on this little fact the rendevouz was a 3 row vehicle. horror upon horror though as its crash ratings seem pretty poor... had one as a rental for a trip east and couldn't wait to be done with it...frightening to think the people that brought you that could even conceive such a transport.

bobw3

I would have to argue that the Murano and Lexus RX are CUV, non-frame, non-truck based SUVs...

The argument about SUV requiring to be frame construction doesn't seem correct to me when the Pilot, Highlander, Murano, Lexus were all considered SUVs by everyone only a few years ago. The Pacifica and Freestyle are the ones that could not be called SUVs, but were called "big wagons" until the term CUV was coined.

Today I can see your point, but back in '04-'05, nobody was calling these medium SUVs crossovers and just because now we look back at them and say, "hey, they're really CUVs" I'm talking about the way things were back then.

But definitions like CUV, SUV, big wagon are circular definitions. Again, I look at capability.

albook

All optional of course. We'll call them "Foose" options, but they're still options.

Well- you're not getting any of this from the dealer. Plus- why get 22's when you can have 24's? And Hemi's are Chrylser only.

albook

My bad- thanks.

albook

If one ignores the nameplates, the VC Limited is clearly more luxurious in feel than the Highlander or TX in limited trim. The top-end leather in the limited is very impressive.

That's the probalem. People don't. And that's what hinders it. Then again, why should they. People don't have to hold their breath and cover the H on Honda to accept getting one. And that's what Handui wants.

albook

The reality is, Ford's interiors are the worst among US automakers.

That's WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY off (sorry for exxagerating). Chrysler's interiors are CRAP except for the new vans (mostly T&C). And until recently, Ford's interiors were better than GM's. Someone just hates Ford.

albook

I'll admit in that pic, It doesn't look terrible, but still hopefully not anyhthing near production. I don't understand why Honda is trying to still go for this tough CUV look. It's not the Explorer (who should try to do it)- and this 2nd gen model doens't have to try to compete with one anymore. The new thing is the Crossover. This doesn't look like something that would compete with the CX-9/Outlook.

albook

On numerous occasions my FS has been mistake for an Explorer, but if you conisder my FS as more "European" I have no problem with that...yeah, my FS European Sports Wagon...sounds better than CUV anyway!

Well someone's gone overboard!

freealfas

I was calling my '05 FS a crossover to people who asked, before '05 with the rendevouz/pacifica(best friend has a pacifica and never once used the term cuv) I'll admit the cuv term wasn't being bandied about but when the FS rolled in the term was adopted...

bobw3

I was calling my '05 FS a crossover to people who asked, before '05 with the rendevouz/pacifica(best friend has a pacifica and never once used the term cuv) I'll admit the cuv term wasn't being bandied about but when the FS rolled in the term was adopted...

Exactly...that's what I'm talking about. Right now sure everything is a CUV, but back in '05, like you, the only vehicle I knew using the CUV name was the FS.

bobw3

Price is another factor. What CUV would you buy if you only had this much to spend?

$25K
$30K
$35K
$40K

volkov

No doubt that for SUV's anyway, the Fords in past few years were miles better than GM IMHO. Ford's new interior look is more modern and edgy in both senses of the word, but I find the new angular design of the new Expy interior a little uninviting. At least the TX looks a little softer.

bobw3

Sort of interesting:
Kia Rondo
Headroom (front/middle/rear) 41.6 in./40.2 in./35.1 in.
Legroom (front/middle/rear) 41.3 in./38.2 in./31.3 in.
Acadia
Headroom (front/middle/rear) 40.4 in./39.3 in./38.4 in.
Leg room, first row 41.30
Leg room, second row 36.90
Leg room, third row 33.20

baggs32

Well- you're not getting any of this from the dealer. Plus- why get 22's when you can have 24's? And Hemi's are Chrylser only.

Give a dealer the right amount of money and they'll install anything for you.

Hemis are made by Dodge but you can buy them and put them in any body you want.

baggs32

Ha! Good catch! Them are some big ole robot bug eyes for sure!

humblecoder

Here is how I think of the term "crossover utility vehicle". Again, this is just my way of thinking and it is in no way "official".

To me, the term crossover implies that the vehicle "crosses over" several segments or categories. That is, combines the characteristics of two or more well-defined categories: car, truck/SUV, minivan, wagon, etc. Of course, you have some vehicles, like the TX, which are probably more "wagon-y". Then you have other vehicles like the lambda which are more "truck-y". However, they aren't pure trucks or wagons. They still have some characteristics of another vehicle.

I think a more descriptive term would be that these are "hybrid" cars, but since that term has a different meaning in automotive terms, I suppose "crossover" is okay. Another term that comes to mind is "mutt". All these vehicles are "mutts"!!

So is there isn't any sort of set characteristics that you can look at that define what a crossover is. It is defined by the fact that it is some mixture of characterstics of other classes of cars.

baggs32

I don't understand why Honda is trying to still go for this tough CUV look. It's not the Explorer (who should try to do it)- and this 2nd gen model doens't have to try to compete with one anymore. The new thing is the Crossover. This doesn't look like something that would compete with the CX-9/Outlook.

It is puzzling. But I have stated my wife's distaste for the appearance of these new CUVs before. They all look like frogs she says. What she is looking for is somethihng truck-like in appearance that doesn't ride like a truck and can be had with a factory DVD system and heated seats. Maybe Honda sees this market potential and is willing to gamble on it?

Until now our only choices given her criteria are the Explorer (we have one now), the Pathfinder, or the Pilot. 2 of those 3 are real trucks and while we really like the one we have, it's overkill. She loved our Escape but it is too small now so a Pilot may be the best compromise between truck and unibody for her.

Option 2 is the Explorer America concept in Detroit right now which shows where Ford is going with the Explorer (I hear it will be on sale in Summer '09 from the rumor mill). Just like the Pilot it will be a unibody with fuel efficient engines, truck-like looks, and competitive interior dimensions. Unfortunately we'll need something a couple of months before it goes on sale if that rumor is true.

Option 3 is to downsize a bit. Even though the Edge looks like a frog to her she says it's growing on her. Maybe there's still hope after all. :shades:

freealfas

keep those cuv adds/reviews conveniently laying around the house for the subtle assult on her subconscious. If you don't tow there is just no point to a full on suv...

slow and steady wins the race...

chuckhoy

I think the biggest question is "how many people do you want to seat?" Once you answer that, you options become much more narrowed.

vad1819

25K - VUE or new coming VW? or Mazda CX-7
30K - Acadia ( 7-8 pass. I got it almost entry level for less that 29K, before price went up) or CX-9
- EDGE (5 pass)
35K - Acadia (7-8 pass)
- Lincoln MKX (5 pass)
40K - Buick Enclave or Audi Q7(but it will be entry level) (7-8 pass)
- Infinity FX 35. (5 pass)

aviboy97

See how muddled this segment is?

I think you can add the Volvo XC-90 to the 40K mix as well as the MDX

ateixeira

Good idea, and harder than it seems.

We have a big hauler so we're shopping for a smaller one for the wifey, so I'd lean towards sportier options. Let's see...

$25k: Forester or CX7
$30k: Tribeca, RD-X?
$35k: X3 or loaded RD-X or Tribeca
$40k: MDX, can you get an X5 that cheap?

Those would be the ones I'd test drive, at least.

Forester and X3 qualify automatically since they're among the very few that offer a manual transmission.

vad1819

"I think you can add the Volvo XC-90 to the 40K mix as well as the MDX "

Yes, I know MDX is a very good CUV (may be best in lux class), but for almost same money you can get a german engineering. So my choice will be Q7. But if I will buy a used one a lux car I probably will go with MDX. But it's other topic. I will choice Q7, even over BMW X5.
The Volvo XC-90 it's 5 pass vehicle. So I think the Infitity design looks much better.
I don't like how XC-90 designed, but it's my personal preference.

bobw3

I think Honda wants the Pilot to firmly lie in the SUV and not CUV category. Maybe Honda will come out with a CUV, or maybe they hope people are smart enough to realize how much more utility there is in their Odyssey over any CUV out there, especially considering most CUVs sold will probably be FWD and never used to tow a whole lot.

Families with a bunch of small kids are still much better served by a minivan if you really need to use all 3 rows on a regular basis.

ateixeira

Especially when you consider that they don't have a traditional BOF truck alternative.

Toyota has the RAV4 and Highlander, but they also have the FJ and the 4Runner, and even the Sequioa. So they can afford to make the Highlander car-like, and don't really need to give it SUV capabilities.

Honda has the CR-V and Pilot, both based on car platforms, beefed up to different degrees, I suppose. Thus the Pilot has to fill the slot occupied by both the Highlander and the 4Runner.

Honda can't say, "buy this instead". If someone feels like the Pilot can't tow their boat, they will very likely leave the Honda brand entirely, and they lose a sale.

So the Pilot has to address the needs of both segments.

cason1

The Volvo XC-90 seats 7.

According to the Audi website, you can get a Q7 at around $40K, but I suspect like Big Foot, a $40K Q7 is an urban legend. I certainly have never seen one on a lot.

baggs32

keep those cuv adds/reviews conveniently laying around the house for the subtle assult on her subconscious. If you don't tow there is just no point to a full on suv...


I definitely do that. In fact, I go so far as to order brochures from mfr sites so they come in the mail and lay around for a while too. She actually likes to look at those because they are typically well done and have nice big bright pictures.

baggs32

I think the biggest question is "how many people do you want to seat?" Once you answer that, you options become much more narrowed.

Well of course they would, but you have to be hard set on that number of seats. We use our 3rd row maybe once or twice a year. Do we want our next vehicle to have a 3rd row? You bet. But we can also live without it if the price is right or we can find something a bit smaller with a reasonable amount of cargo space behind the second row. With 2 small boys we don't need the extra seats, but we do need the extra cargo space. That's a big reason why the Escape is no longer in our garage. It was just too small for all the crap we had to haul around.

cjsb

Note: Canadian. Answers include taxes, freight, etc. Out the door prices.

Fundamental Criteria: Must have three rows.

$25K - Mazda 5 (not a CUV)
$30K - Santa Fe
$35K - Veracruz
$40K - Veracruz

scottinky

if your willing to eat the gas mileage, of which you really aren't saving
that much over a full size SUV, you can swipe a Nissan Armada SE for cheaper
than a Veracruz, and once you drive it/ride in it, there is no going back to small.

vad1819

So, you're willing pay 40 grand for Korean car. It's insane. Also, Veracruz better than MDX or Q7 or Buick or R-class Mercedes ? Explain. It can be better than RX but the only because seat 7 in Veracruz.

volkov

Canadian!
We get ripped off up here.
MDX, Q7 $55k stripped -$70k
Buick $45-55
R-class $65 OTD spec'd as I wanted.
$40k for a vehicle not say bad in that situation. Plus, last I checked, Hyundai had better overall reliability than GM.

cjsb

Not only have I driven the Armada, one of my closest friends who lives in California owns one. I'd take the VC without hesitation. Small? Apparently you aren't familiar with the vehicle. When did 4400lbs, 191 inches and more hip and shoulder room than a CX9 translate into small?

And what's up with the "Korean" thing? (no longer directed at Scott) I don't give a damn where a car company is headquartered. Hyundai has been scoring quality and reliability awards left, right and centre lately. Anybody a trader? Best time to buy is before the folks who haven't caught on, catch on.

Over the past 20 years I have owned Audi, BMW 5 Series (hell, my Dad's German and my Uncle in Texas owns a garage that specializes in Audi/BMW/Merc/Porsche/Volks), Chev, Chrysler, Ford, Honda, Oldsmobile, Pontiac. Each of those for at least two years.

The VC does not cost $40K. But if that was my price threshold, I still buy it. What can I say? I spent eight months doing my due dilligence and this vehicle beat the Acadia/Outlook, CX9, Acura (for the money). I would have spent $50K if the vehicle that warranted that represented the best value of all those I shopped. In the end, the VC was a run away winner.

Like I say, I don't care who makes it. Just make it good, give me some history to show you know what you are doing and let me have it for a better price than anything comparable. Done deal.

cjsb

If you can find me a Q7, Enclave, R-Class or MDX out the door for less than 40K, email me and I'll send you my phone number.

For reference, that means a price of $35K before tax.

I shopped the Q7, Enclave and MDX. Drove them all and secured three quotes each. Not the R. All considerably more expensive than the VC. So I don't see where you are headed.

cjsb

Agreed...to some extent. Particularly bad on luxury vehicles.

Things have balanced out a bit more of late.

We paid just a touch more for our VC in Canada than we would have had we bought in the States. That's because Hyundai was proactive in addressing the currency swing with a $5500 rebate to keep buyers in Canada.

vad1819

"The VC does not cost $40K. But if that was my price threshold, I still buy it."

Oh, well when you have 40K to spend and you're buying VC it's sad story, so for you have no difference what to drive BMW or Hyudai or KIA. I think you don't have idea what good car mean. I don't compare reliability of these vehicle, I compare here driving experience, style, quality of materials. I have been caught by one review, that VC better than RX. So went and test drove the vehicle. That vehicle doesn't feel a road at all, slow reaction for out put your steering wheel, doesn't hold a road.
By the way all Hyundai vehicle have a same problem, I have drove them all. I have travel a lot, so I rent different vehicles. I have even changed rent car company to get away from Hyundai. I can add Kia to same category vehicles - NO FEEL a ROAD.
Any way, they sell a lot cars (sad story) and for a lot people who don't care what to drive and have a cheapest ride, that a good choice.

thegraduate

Any way, they sell a lot cars (sad story) and for a lot people who don't care what to drive and have a cheapest ride, that a good choice.

You're trying to make an insult sound nice. It doesn't work.

It's like going up to someone and saying "New haircut? Well, as long as YOU like it..."

To each his own in this category, vad.

To say someone picking choice A or B is a "sad story" and that car A or B is only for people who want the cheapest drive and who don't care about what they spent their money for, well, that's pitiful, disgraceful, and childish.

cjsb

Vad, it's true. I just think it's a great vehicle, particularly for the price. Lots of other terrific cars out there as well. This is just the one that we felt was best for us and our kids at this juncture. None of the others we considered had quite everything we were looking for. Again, that's just us. For others, the VC might not make any sense at all.

I believe Jim Kenzie, noted Canadian automobile journalist, chose the X5 as the WORST car he tested in 2007. Now I might not take it that far but you can see different strokes for different folks.

FTR, I do know a bit about cars so don't feel too sad for me. Maybe I'll take my in-laws BMW5 for a run today. Or the Pacifica Touring. Steal my buddies G35 like I do sometimes when he's not looking. Or sit around and get nostalgic about by Dad's super stock 57 Chev 283 Bel Air. And I sure don't miss my Audi that was in the garage more than my son is into the cookies.

colloquor

vad1819 wrote: "So, you're willing pay 40 grand for Korean car. It's insane. Also, Veracruz better than MDX or Q7 or Buick or R-class Mercedes ? Explain. It can be better than RX but the only because seat 7 in Veracruz."

Not "too many" years ago, anyone could make that statement regarding any Japanese vehicle as well. Give it a break, the Korean automobile manufacturing industry is following the exact paradigm as the Japanese industry before it. Do you really think that Japanese vehicles were always of very high perceived or real quality? Evidently, you're not old enough to really remember the poor quality of some of the Japanese vehicles in the past.

vad1819

I don't try to insult anybody.
My point is ok to pay 20-30 grand for Hyundai, but 40 grand plus for this car it's insane. There are a lot more choices in this price range, and much better cars. Also, you may admit the handling part is terrible on all Hyundai.
I'm shocked, on this forum at beginning everyone like CX-9, and then the VC becomes better choice. How is in the world you can compare CX-9 to VC?
Just couple years ago I knew people who tell me “will never forget the day they bought Hyundai".
As much time we’re spending in car and driving, we should enjoy our cars and driving experience. It’s like having good house. But the Hyundai is not one. I had Acura 3.2 TL it’s good car but my VW more enjoyable and fun to drive.