Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Any more advice/suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
The CX-9 also got 5 stars for frontal and side impact rating from the NHTSA and has roll stability control making it marginally safer than the Acadia.
Its sort of funny what can be a deal-breaker for one person, would have no impact on another. The lack of something as basic as an AUX-IN on the Mazda is one reason I haven't even tried it. Gotta have the IPod as I have an extensive music/audible book collection and am just not willing to resort to a lot of contortions to use it. Also REALLY liked the 3 position switch for the heated seats on both front seats and the fact that you can heat the back independently of the seat bottom. A minor detail certainly, but if you have a dicey back is certainly a nice feature. My only problem with the Acadia is the size, both length and width which would make a tight squeeze in the garage. IMO the hunting transmission issue is also a bit overblown unless you regularly travel in very hilly country.
It sure is great to have several very viable choices, and I'm sure that for many the ZOOM-ZOOM factor in the CX-9 is a big factor in the decision process. Whatever you decide, please let us know and check-in now and then so we know how its going.
FYI, the CX-9 has an aux-in for the iPod in the armrest--I just plugged my iPod out of it a few minutes ago. It also has an optional iPod integration kit that lets you control from your radio.
Other factors in my decision to go with CX-9:
1. Bluetooth -- the Acadia doesn't offer bluetooth, instead is has Onstar for a monthly fee.
2. Acadia drives "larger" than the CX-9--CX-9 feels more like a sedan.
3. The Acadia I drove gear hunted not only on hills, but on flat roads, especially in the higher gears. I believe this problem is not fully resolved in the '08. The '09 will supposedly have new transmission software.
The midsize I will say - VC and TX
The small- CRV, Edge
Regards,
OW
For a family of four like mine (wife and 2 kids), I don't need a minivan, and I certainly don't need a minivan replacement. So best in class is in the eye of the beholder, depends on what you like in a vehicle. My wife and I wanted a CUV that handled and rode like a sedan, and the closest to that was the CX-9. So, for us, the CX-9 is best in class! (and we're not alone: Motor Trend and North American International Auto Show both think it's SUV of the year).
1. Acceleration from a stop: Acadia had a bit of hesitation between pressing the throttle and getting the car going (note: this has been addressed in the 2008 model). The CX-9 just seems more effortless to get going, and felt faster when you got on the throttle. It also changes gears smoothly in all 6 gears, without an inkling of gear hunting.
2. Acceleration while in 4th gear or so: Acadia had a bit of hesitation downshifting -- you really had to force a downshift in those higher gears (Note: this has been somewhat addressed in the 2008 model, but I still felt some hesitation near the 4-5 gear change). The CX-9 smoothly shifts down, no hesitation.
3. Handling: (a) Cornering--CX-9 has less lean in corners, but the Acadia wasn't that bad. (b) Emergency avoidance--I usually try to get a sense of suspension tuning by driving about 40 mph or so and turning the wheel quickly to the left or right (and then straightening out) to see how the car handles this little "emergency avoidance". The Acadia took a while to steady out, i.e. it seemed like the back end took a second or so to respond. The CX-9 adjusted quickly. The CX-9 on 20" tires adjusts even quicker.
4. Braking: they both felt very smooth, no sudden grab-on. I think the Acadia pedal feel felt a bit better than the CX-9.
5. Overall Driveability: CX-9 drives like a sports sedan, i.e. somewhat stiffer suspension, corners a little better. The Acadia is more of a straight line cruiser, seemed to absorb potholes a little better, but it just drives "bigger" than the CX-9. Neither car is bouncy or really floaty (the Enclave felt floaty, in comparison). If you opt for the 19" wheels on the Acadia, the ride does get a bit harsher, and it feels like the CX-9 with 18" wheels.
6. Which one to get? SImple: if you want a car-like replacement, take the CX-9. If you want to replace your big body-on-frame SUV, take the Acadia. In either case, you'll be happy with both because they are fantastic vehicles.
I am quite happy to stand corrected. I could not find any information about this on Mazda'a website and there is a fairly lengthy thread on the CX9 board about owners having to use some type of switchbox - but maybe that only applies to a conflict with XM radio. I'll have to check it out.
I pretty much agree and this is also what I've read in many other reviews. But if you want a car-like replacement, the TX is also a good choice. It has the same interior space as the CX-9 and is more car-like than the CX-9 (too much car-like for some).
And when you say "acadia" you really mean lambdas because they're basically the same (acadia, outlook, enclave)
My wife will need a replacement to her '03 Denali...she loves the Enclave for looks so I wanted your take on the Acadia which will be a close comparo. The CX-9 would be my choice but she has final say. We need the 3rd seat.
We start driving towards the end of this year so the '09's will be in play for us.
Best of luck with your excellent choice!
Regards,
OW
But both model new and it's hard too say what will be resale for these cars in five years. For now GM residual is 62%, and Mazda is 59%. It's current lease offers. So GM is predicting very good residual value.
It's forum. Why do you aggravate, if someone has different opinion then yours ?
It's my opinion. You my agree or disagree,nut no reason to be upset.
We all have a different "best-in-class" based on what our needs, wants, and desires are.
It's not true and we're go over and over these CUV, because not many of them.
Some of us think TX or CX-9 or VC or Highlander is better value.
I'm talking from position of my personal experience with the GM lambdas.
True- but the only vehicles that have more interior capability are conversion vans, and gas mileage for those is ridiculous.
the third row has practically no thigh support since it's so low to the floor, which would be painful for adults/grown kids on long trips.
From what I've felt and heard, the Lambdas definitely have the best 3rd row of any vehicle in the class. Nothing else is a spacious.
the Sienna is faster than the Acadia (0-60 in less than 7 sec), and it gets up to 26 mpg.
With the new direct injection, I'd be willing to bet that the lambdas may not be as quick as the Sienna, but quicker than the CX-9 and VC. For that reasons, it might get MT's SUOTY.
Bottom line is, Lambdas may not be best for every body. But if you want to replace your bof SUV with a CUV this is the way to go. If you want the closest thing to a minivan there is no other comparison. And if you want a good CUV with good gas mileage, good handling, and a comfortable interior, the lambdas are a great choice.
There's a forum full of people who picked the Enclave over Range Rovers and X5's and GL's. And the R-class can't be too hard to compete with, seeing that they seemed to be nailed to dealership floors.
And I'll say you get more from the Buick.
As to size, the Enclave may be bigger, but I certainly wouldn't call the VC mid-size. Can you provide your definition? Or is it another "anything smaller than a Lambda isn't full size"?
Simple. The VC is the size of a midsize SUV. And the Enclave is the size of a full size SUV.
After seeing the $60k number, I tried the GM "build your vehicle" feature, and managed to get an Enclave to $63k. So it is possible.
I also just received a hospital lottery flyer which lists homes and cars as prizes; the Enclave price is listed at 70k. I assume that includes the tax.
after driving with the Nav and 8" display integrated with back-up camera on the Highlander, it's all Dra can talk about. She hasn't been excited about anything else vehicle related since getting her Bug 6 years ago.
When we tried out the Highlander for the second time, we got the SR5 model, which inlcuded the backup camera on the little 2" screen (no nav option). Even that little screen was useful. I'm glad your wife likes that feature on the big screen. Very useful. And the Highlander has better visibility than the Enclave too. That's why the backup camera was a feature we wish that we could have ordered separately.
Is there an aftermarket system that integrates Nav screen and camera display?
I'm not sure as I haven't researched this yet. I'll look into it shortly as we will be getting the Enclave at the end of the month.
I must say that the leather seats in the VC are indeed luxurious. It's one of the VCs better features. And I repeat, it is an excellent vehicle.
I guess the reason that we "felt" the Enclave was a "luxury" vehicle was the entire package; Number one, the amazingly quiet ride; Number two; smooth as butter on almost any road surface; Number three; beautiful interior and exterior; Number four; each time we drove it, my wife became more impressed with its' "luxury" feel. I know those things are probably all pretty subjective. I'll bet that you felt the same way about your VC though. And as long as we are all happy with our choices, that's all that really matters.
We looked at both. For us it came down to size most of all. We needed the size of the Enclave. It will hold six adults plus gear. The Highlander can only hold 4 adults comfortably. For us it was too small. However, if you only need seating for 4 adults, plus small children, then the Highlander might be perfect for you.
We did not get the Nav option as it was part of a $4300 option package. However, the Onstar system gives you turn by turn voice directions. Or you can use a portable nav system.
More importantly, after test driving the Enclave, how was it for you? Did it meet your needs?
It's hard to have a crystal ball on reliability. We tried to factor it in when we looked at the CX9, VC, Highlander, and Enclave. Eventually we gave up. Some brands that used to be reliable (Mercedes, VW) are much less reliable these days. Some reliable models have unreliable siblings (Camry with 6 speed). Others that used to be unreliable are now much better (Hyundai). The problem with reliability data is that is historical, and doesn't necessarily predict the future. Plus you can buy the most reliable model available and still get a lemon. I think that it is more important to try to get a vehicle that meets your needs, and then take good care of it, and hope for the best. Having said all that, my gut feeling is that there shouldn't be too much difference in reliablility between the CX9 and Acadia. Just a guess however.
Resale value is a bit easier. Toyota and Honda are right up there.GM and Mazda are middle of the pack. I would not expect much difference in the CX9 and Acadia resale values.
And now the good stuff: I think GM should give the direct injection to the Chevy Traverse for a whole year before passing it on to the rest of the clan. They should also tune the Traverse to be sporty, like the CX-9, as this would really differentiate the Traverse, and possibly steal sales away from the CX-9, so its win-win for Chevy. Then in 2010 they could bring the engine to the other Lambdas.
With the coming of the Traverse, I think that the Saturn Outlook will suffer heavily. Guess we'll see...
My wife will need a replacement to her '03 Denali...she loves the Enclave for looks so I wanted your take on the Acadia which will be a close comparo. The CX-9 would be my choice but she has final say. We need the 3rd seat.
We start driving towards the end of this year so the '09's will be in play for us.
If your wife likes the looks of the Enclave, then that is most likely what you'll end up with (that's what happened to us). We preferred the Enclave's third seat and the space behind it as well, over the CX9. I have not driven an Acadia, but I did drive the CX9. The CX9 is more a driver's vehicle. If your wife enjoys feeling the road, and likes to "push" a vehicle on occasion, the CX9 is a great choice. The Enclave suited my wife better as it drove like a "luxury" vehicle, in her words; which means quiet, smooth, confident.
And now the good stuff: I think GM should give the direct injection to the Chevy Traverse for a whole year before passing it on to the rest of the clan. They should also tune the Traverse to be sporty, like the CX-9, as this would really differentiate the Traverse, and possibly steal sales away from the CX-9, so its win-win for Chevy. Then in 2010 they could bring the engine to the other Lambdas.
With the coming of the Traverse, I think that the Saturn Outlook will suffer heavily. Guess we'll see...
I agree. My wife simply did not want another minivan. For us the lambda was the best minivan alternative.
And we have been "uncomfortable" in the second and third rows of six different minivans on long trips. But at least we fit. We fit in the lambda as well; better than in the VC, CX9, and Highlander we tried. How comfortable we will be on a long trip is another question, as we haven't even gotten our vehicle yet. I suspect that the longer the trip, the more uncomfortable we will be. That is simply the reality of the situation.
I think your suggestion for the Traverse is brilliant. GM marketing should hire you!
It certainly does look much better than the Uplander. However I think you and I agree that it does carry over certain key design cues from said Uplander and that was the original point. I'm referring to things like the big bar housing the Chevy emlem, the same basic bulbous nose and hood for some examples. It almost looks like they grabbed the Uplander by the brake lights and pulled all the sheet metal back a few inches then tied it off. It is nice, but I don't see why we should all think Chevy is coming up with some revolutionary design theme now. I don't think anyone has officially written anything like that yet, but I bet it's coming. Probably in the next MT and/or C&D.
Highlander 605
Acadia 434
Pilot 402
Enclave 281
Taurus X 229
CX-9 123
Tribeca 122
Outlook 112
Veracruz 100
Did I forget anyone's favourite vehicle?
Keep in mind that Canada's population is roughly 10-11% of the US.
I think it goes without saying that the majority of the content in any forum is opinion. That's what makes the forums so interesting -- lots of different opinions.
Personally, I'm down to the Highlander and the Murano. Though great vehicles I'm sure, the Arcadia and CX9 are too large for my needs.
When the '08 Highlander came out, I was pretty sure it was the one. The Murano wasn't in the running until I saw a spy photo of the 2nd generation design.
They're surprisingly similar -- both are around 189 inches long, both have features that appeal to me (Bluetooth, power rear door, Smart Key, backup camera without requiring a navigation system), both have a history of being reliable and having fairly good resale value (with Toyota having the slight edge).
The Highlander has the third row, but that's not important for me (I'd leave it folded most of the time anyway). The Murano has a sportier feel to it, but I'm not racing around a mountain road every day. The Murano's has nicer interior materials, and more nice-to-haves such as HID headlights, LED tails, iPod integration, etc., but it does cost a few thousand more (in LE form) than a Highlander Limited.
The Murano excites me more, but the Highlander seems like it would be the "safer" decision (in terms of reliability, resale, etc.). I'm not sure what I'm going to do, but I guess it's good to have choices.
I guess good things come from GM now and again.
Regards,
OW
Although Hyundai has come a long way from what it was, its still has a way to go to catch up with Toyota and Honda. GM on the other hand has jumped miles ahead, from being a joke just a few years ago. Quality has improved so much in such a short time I think they must have focused all resources on each issue and resolved it, throwing out the bean counters. I was a Toyota/BMW man but lost faith in both after 2 bad experiences with 2 new BMWs and after driving the Buick Enclave, I have to say that in this price range represents the best all around value for style, quality, reliability and practicality.
I think those looking for a CUV should also HIGHLY consider the Chevy Traverse. Its great looking and an even better value than the Enclave. The Toyota Highlander has great quality and ratings but its looks have been molded after a hybrid insect. I would go with the Enclave, Acadia or Traverse. Avoid the Veracruz by all means.
GM is doing very good job to bring back a brand on market, and is not just a CUV, also sedans from Chevy and Pontiac, and Saturn. The cadillac CTS is real good value (starting just above 30 grand) with 310 HP and new interior design.
No denying it's the first decent interior from Cadillac in many years, but I've never seen any 304 hp CTS "just above 30 grand." All I have seen have been closer to $40k than $30k, some well over $40k.
Back on topic, I hope for GM's sake that their cars do as well as their large vehicles. For the last ten years we've heard that "the new Malibu" whether it be the late '90s model, the mid 2000s model, and now the brand new Malibu, would be what turns GM around. It hasn't happened with the first two, but hopefully bringing in the Opel Vectra will work, because it seems our boys at home can't get it done on the budget they have. People didn't buy these cars in droves or at good prices, but they did buy the trucks since they had no other real competition save for Ford, which was in the same boat. Now, things have changed with cars (GM/Ford are now competitive it looks like) and trucks (the imports are catching on).
What were the lease terms for GM's 62% residual? Mazda's residual is not 59%, it is 62% in my area.
Also, it should be noted that it does not matter what the manufacturer sets the residuals at. That only effects the lease payment. A higher residual = lower payment = increased sales. Combine the residual with the money factor for a more accurate lease comparison. I believe GM is sticking it to you with money factors that average close to 8.0%. OUCH! Mazda's money factor's equate to 1%- 4%. I don't think that is what we are trying to do here, compare leases. I believe there is a separate thread for that.
What effects the real world resale value are factory rebates, average sale cost new, repair rate, overall perceived reliability (more reliable vehicles tend to have higher real world resale values. Great example is Honda and Toyota) and fleet sales. There is a $500 rebate on the Acadia, and no rebate on the CX-9.
That's a pretty bold negative.
Why? Have you sat in a Veracruz to try it out in person?
I don't think you'd be writing that if you had.
You "HIGHLY" (your caps) recommend the Traverse - yet have you sat in one yet?
You said yourself "Hyundai has come a long way from what it was".
Did you know that the 2004 Hyundai Sonata was the most reliable vehicle in Consumer Reports' entire survey last year?
I can understand concerns about resale given their history, but for the most part the reasoning behind strong opinions like these is a personal bias against Hyundai.
First year Lambdas had some teething issues, and here GM launches a first-year Traverse and you give GM a free pass, going as far as strongly recommending a model you have never even sat in yet.
At least elaborate on your opinion a bit? Here, from the sidelines, it just sounds like a bias for GM and against Hyundai.
Yes, it looks nice, but, how about we see some test results to see how it stacks up against the competition. I know it's a Lambda, but, apparently it's not just a rebadge.
I would go with the Enclave, Acadia or Traverse. Avoid the Veracruz by all means.
It seemed that you were inferring that the Veracruz is lacking in quality against the lambdas. Reports and tests have shown otherwise. Overall, Hyundai has a pretty good reputation for reliability. First year results are not in yet. I would buy one over a GM.
Newer Hyundais have been reliable. CR's Buying Guide 2008 lists 6 Hyundai models as Average or better for the last model year with data available.
All six, by the way. No more black dots. 5 of the 6 score above average.