Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
pm was smoking that day, 24' better than a cx, and the tribeca in 5th place and the idea the 3rd row of a cx is habitable, please that's a review bought by mazda marketing every day of the week. they sent the good fruit basket to PM review staff that afternoon.
Didn't agree with the Popular Mechanics reviews and rankings? Here's another one from the US news that ranks "mid-sized" suvs. The fact that they consider all of these to be mid-sized should spark a fair number of comments regarding size, let alone how they are ranked:
1. Honda Pilot (9.0) 2. Nissan Murano (8.9) 3. Buick Enclave (8.7) 4. GMC Acadia (8.5) 5. Saturn Outlook (8.3) 5. Toyota FJ Cruiser (8.3) 7. Jeep Grand Cherokee (8.1) 8. Ford Edge (8.0) 8. Mazda CX7 (8.0) 8. Subaru Tribeca (8.0) 8. Toyota Highlander Hybrid (8.0) 12. Hyundai Santa Fe (7.9) 12. Nissan Pathfinder (7.9) 12. Toyota Highlander (7.9) 15. Chrysler Pacifica (7.7) 15. Ford Explorer (7.7) 17. Mitsubishi Endeavour (7.6) 17. Toyota 4 Runner (7.6) 19. Hummer H3 (7.5) 20. LIncoln MKX (7.4) 21. Mercury Moutaineer (7.3) 22. GMC Envoy (6.8) 23. Chevy Trailblazer (6.2) 24. Isuzu Ascender (5.6)
They did not include some of the vehicles that this site is concerned with, such as the CX9, VC, Taurus X. However, it is interesting to read their reviews on the vehicles in the list.
What I found most interesting, is that their rankings can change over time, based on new information gathered from other sources. They sources include all the newspaper based automotive reviewers in the US.
that's a review bought by mazda marketing every day of the week
It just means that Mazda sent a better fruit basket than Subaru or GM! All companies play the same tricks, don't you worry. What tends to help the CX-9 is its sports sedan-like ride, which reviewers apparently tend to favor. That seems makes up for other deficits.
I recently bought a CX-9, and it's a joy to carve the corners. Much better feel than the Acadia, Highlander, or Veracruz. Third row is more comfortable than the Acadia, imo (better seats, more knee space, not as low to the ground), but headroom is lacking for tall people, and ease of access to that third row is better in the Acadia if you have captains chairs.
What I don't understand is how low the Highlander is rated so low. They claim that the Highlander has "middle of the road power", but yet later in the review, they state it's the "fastest people hauler in it's class". Then, they hit it with a 6.8 out of 10 for "performance". I guess it handles pretty bad. I know it's about the "total package", but, since I have never driven a new Highlander, I didn't think it would drive as bad as they say it did. Pretty interesting.
Also of note, I saw several references to the CX-9 throughout every review of the 7 seater crossovers, but, yet it's not on the list. Does that make any sense? How is the Trailblazer and H3 ranked and the CX-9 is not? Am I the only one here scratching my head??
Having different divisions is fine as long as they fulfil different missions. Luxury division, near-luxury division, vanilla division, performance division, etc... The problem with the GM divisions is that there is little differentiation between the divisions. Caddy is the luxury division, Buick is the near luxury division, the rest are a mish-mash of ideas and identities. That is not a good thing.
True, except I'd say Pontiac is headed in the direction of defining and separating itself from the others. THe real problem is Saturn and Chevy. They sit right on top of each other.
It depends on what you "value" most. One man's treasure is another man's trash. To me, neither vehicle is a perfect blend, but both are good overall. They just cater to different audiences in my opinion.
I second that. The Pilot is more for those who want more of an SUV package, and those capabilities. The TX is for someone who needs to seat 6-7 but really wants a car. And it would have sold well had it been targeted in that direction. Look at the new Toyota Venza. It's targeted right for that markte (except for seating 5) and it will sell great. Some sexy, more carlike Edge styling, and it would have been a hit.
Considering that the CX-9 is up to date in technology, size and power, and the Pilot is not, the $1,200 difference is quite minimal.
I'll go with power, and maybe technology in the bluetooth category, but size wize, the Pilot is a great fit. The third row is just as comfortable as in a CX-9, and the 12 cuft loss in cargo space isn't that bad considering the foot loss in length. The Pilot does a great job with it's small dimensions (though that's probably because it's a box). However, for 40g, I wouldn't even be looking at these two. I'd get an MDX.
I don't have survey results as to what previous vehicle Acadia owners had, but one thing is for sure, the Acadia is stealing sales from its GM SUV brothers: for 2007, Envoy sales were down 35%, Trailblazer down 23%, Equinox down 22%, Yukon and Tahoe down 10%, and minivan sales down over 75%, but who cares about those, right
Really, I'd have to say right. Minivan sales down? Have you driven an Uplander? Go sit in one and you'll figure it out. Those sales from '06 are probably down 75% from 2005, too. The Envoy and siblings, as well as the Suburban and it's siblings have also been losing sales, as the SUV market has been diminishing. That's the reason these CUVs are here. But I did say in the post you replied to that the lambdas very well could be taking some of these sales, as, unlike the CX-9, the lambdas come from a company that produces many overlapping vehicles (like Envoys and Yukons and Uplanders).
In my world 3000 miles without a problem isn't anything to brag about. I've only ever owned 1 vehicle that did have a problem before 3K. It was a GM. None of our others had any problems before 20K. YMMV.
Some people aren't big mileage drivers. One of my friends has a '00 Mustang with 15,000 miles on it that he drives around the corner to work every day.
I have a 7 year old vehicle in my garage with over 130k miles and my primary driving vehicle (3 years old) with over 50k miles. And those numbers would be signifigcantly larger if we didn't have a third vehicle that takes some of the miles(especially my car-I drive the 3rd vehicle to work 40% of the time, now). 3k miles to me is nothing.
Which brings up a very important point. Most of us have to live with what we buy for a significant length of time. If the look of it doesn't make you happy, all the features, reliability, handling, etc. are meaningless. There are few things more irritating than getting into a car everday that you can hardly stand to look at.
I totally agree. And while I think you should have more criteria than looks, if you don't like the way you're vehicle looks, then you're doing nothing but making a huge monthly payment. Mine in this case is the Subaru Tribeca. It could get 30 mpg and have more the most room inside, and best handling of any vehicle on this froum, but I would still never get near one with my checkbook.
I also think you should pay your car off and have it at least a year after before moving to something different. So I think you should get something you know you will be happy with for 5 years (I always pay mine off years before the final note is due, just in case).
Did I hear you correctly ...the Tribeca look better then the CX-9? Just curious....
No way! I think Subaru made a mistake in the drawing board and ran with it! I think the CX-9 looks awkward and disproportionate, but decent- not that bad. Though a little too van like for my tastes, it decently achieves it's goal of looking sporty. I don't know where Subaru was going- especially with the original.
Third row is more comfortable than the Acadia, imo (better seats, more knee space, not as low to the ground), but headroom is lacking for tall people, and ease of access to that third row is better in the Acadia if you have captains chairs.
Wow! That's one I've never heard before. The Acadia has third row seats the closest to a minivan (not right on the floor, like the others). Maybe it's a 6+ ft thing, but I would never go near the CX-9's third row for a trip. The Lambdas, I could do easily (but you're right- the CX-9's headroom does factor into that). They are so much more comfortable to me. PM gave ease of third row access to the VC? Smartslide is so much easier to use to get to the way back.
I totally agree. And while I think you should have more criteria than looks, if you don't like the way you're vehicle looks, then you're doing nothing but making a huge monthly payment. Mine in this case is the Subaru Tribeca. It could get 30 mpg and have more the most room inside, and best handling of any vehicle on this froum, but I would still never get near one with my checkbook.
Have to agree with you about the Tribeca - to my eyes it is very generic on the exterior and has a weird looking interior.
I didm't mean to imply the the look was the only factor, but like the Cadillac commercial, it has to turn me on (at least to a degree). Maybe that is why I never bought a Volvo .
Okay, but what are the numbers of the CX-7 compared to a competitor like the Murano or Edge?
The CX-7 sells no where near the numbers of the Murano or Edge. As a matter of fact, Mazda sells a fraction of the vehicles that either Ford or Nissan sells. Mazda is the 4th largest auto manufacturer from Japan. They are a pretty small company.
Take this into account. Mazda never had a vehicle in that class before, so, with 41,600 sales in 2007, I'm pretty sure there were a lot of previous Ford and Nissan customers that now own Mazda. In fact, 80% of people stepping foot into a Mazda dealership have never even test driven a Mazda before, and close to 90% have never owned a Mazda before. So, with the sale numbers of the CX-7, it's safe to say that 37,440 CX-7 owners were driving another brand before hand. I bet there are a lot of previous Ford and Nissan owners in there. That is a more telling story.
The CX-7 sells no where near the numbers of the Murano or Edge. As a matter of fact, Mazda sells a fraction of the vehicles that either Ford or Nissan sells. Mazda is the 4th largest auto manufacturer from Japan. They are a pretty small company.
So the point is it's all about relativety. A better thing to say would be that CX-7 is recieving the sales numbers Mazda targeted. Because these may be the numbers Mazda wants, but incomparison to what other competitors are selling, these numbers are very small.
My thoughts: It was a pretty good show. All of the automakers had something.
In the CUV category- The Chevy Traverse definitely looks better in person. At first I needed some warming up to it (though there were some aspects I did like) after seeing it, the styling is nice, and compliments Chevy nicely. The Pilot looks so much better in person. I'm not saying it looks great, but the exterior styling is okay. If you're set on buying a Honda (like all those die hard Toyonda fans out there) you're not even looking at styling. The Dodge Journey still bores me. Styling aside, it's a good move for Chrysler (and they ned all the good moves they can get). But If I needed something that size, I'd go get a Veracruz- maybe even a Pilot. The Toyota Venza? It looks decently good, but Toyota's not fooling anybody. That's nothing but a Camry wagon. And like Ford, they changed the name because they know the wagon is "uncool" :P . It will still sell great.
Have to agree with you about the Tribeca - to my eyes it is very generic on the exterior and has a weird looking interior.
To me, it's like they tried to bland the front up, but it still retains it's awkward shape.
I didm't mean to imply the the look was the only factor, but like the Cadillac commercial, it has to turn me on (at least to a degree). Maybe that is why I never bought a Volvo
Oh I understand. I really think styling has a place on everyone's list, whether they will admit it or not. I've heard even the most conservative functionality based posters on this board say something about a style that they like or didn't like.
Walking to the lifts through the parking lot this morning I overheard someone ask their friend what that was parked across from them - a Caravan?
It was a Tribeca.
I don't see any resemblance.
In other news, someone in a Frontier flipped their rig right in the middle of the two lane as we were heading down after lunch. Guess there's a bit of black ice out there.
Walking to the lifts through the parking lot this morning I overheard someone ask their friend what that was parked across from them - a Caravan?
It was a Tribeca.
I don't see any resemblance.
I can see some resemblance to the last gen Town & Country actually. From certain angles anyway. The big difference in size is enough to make me not think the Tribeca is a minivan though.
Personally I think the new Tribeca is pretty decent looking. It's not exciting or drop dead gorgeous, but it's likeable IMO. Definietly better than their first effort. My neighbor has one of those and it amazes me how ugly it is every time I see it. You just have to stare at it sometimes. :surprise:
A better thing to say would be that CX-7 is receiving the sales numbers Mazda targeted. Because these may be the numbers Mazda wants, but in comparison to what other competitors are selling, these numbers are very small.
That's correct. In this world, you need to concentrate on what you need to do to succeed, and not worry about what your competition is doing. Since Mazda does not have the capabilities produce units like Honda / Toyota / Nissan / Ford / GM, they are best suited to stick to their guns, and steadily grow as a company. Which is what they are doing and doing well.
When we were looking at minivans/CUVs a few months ago I used styling as a criteria. There were so many good offerings out there it was tough to narrow the field to a few to concentrate on, so styling was used to get rid of the ones we thought were ugly. That is how the CX-9 got dumped. My wife hated how it looked and thought it was too small.
I see it. That's a comment I made when I first saw it. The headlights and grille, along with the downward sloping hood make it look like the last gen. Town and Country, as someone else mentioned.
In other news, someone in a Frontier flipped their rig right in the middle of the two lane as we were heading down after lunch. Guess there's a bit of black ice out there.
The weather's been bad lately. I guess this is one of the perks of having a CUV/ vehicle with all wheel drive.
I had to spend some "quality" time with the ski patrol this morning and none of them could figure out how the pickup wound up upside down in the middle of the road like it did.
I guess I'll have to pay more attention to the Tribeca/Caravan looks. It was a newer Tribeca without that nose, but I'm fixated on the good old days when I had a boxy Voyager.
a shot in the dark, chalk it up to an evasive maneuver gone bad resulting in the demonstrated downside of a raised center of gravity due to it's suv proportions and ride height.
Shouldn't that thing have had roll-over protection? I thought it was pretty much standard on these new crossovers. Doesn't mean it'll work in all conditions, but if it's as good as stability protection, it should really help stop the car from tipping over in emergency avoidance situations.
a frontier is a SUV not a CUV by the working definitions that float around here. as for the ESP if it had it is not the end all be all in roll over avoidance. physics at some point always wins regarless of all the bells and whistles and marketing that is shown to the public.
I was just making small talk for the holiday weekend; sorry to lead anyone astray. A CUV shouldn't have topsy-turvied in that situation (actually neither should a SUV, but people still manage to trip them).
Gotta love how clones Edge (8th place) and MKX (20th place) are so far apart. Price means something, sure, but that alone can't explain why one does well and the other bombs badly.
Also, it's rather funny that the Pilot finishes last in the PM test and then first with US News.
Though you gotta wonder, what makes them think they're qualified to rate automobiles in the first place?
I'd rank their merit to do so just below Family Circle magazine.
(side note: I think they actually do award a family car of the year, something like that)
PM usually offers a unique perspective, but I would trust them more to evaluate car gadgets vs. entire cars. Like GPS systems, maybe.
"Though you gotta wonder, what makes them think they're qualified to rate automobiles in the first place?"
Unfortunately, who pay more money for ad, that will get better rating. I went and test drove dozen different vehicle, so i have rated Acadia and CX-9 best value for the money.I have prefered getting Acadia 1. better deal; 2. quiter inside; 3. more space for the driver; 4. close by dealership; 5.Mazda still unknown brand for me. Don't know what expect.
Gotta love how clones Edge (8th place) and MKX (20th place) are so far apart. Price means something, sure, but that alone can't explain why one does well and the other bombs badly.
That's easy. They are for different markets. You can't say the MKX is better than the Murano- they don't compete. The MKX is more expensive, and since it's luxury it should be nicer. How would the MKX rate in comparison to an MDX (obviously not well).
Though you gotta wonder, what makes them think they're qualified to rate automobiles in the first place?
If CR can do it (and according to all their diehard fans they can) than PM is qaulified to.
It's little more than advertisment. If you're loooking for a car, don't just go off of them. Before doing YOUR OWN assessment, read MT or C&D and then go to edmunds.com. I think we can all agree these sources are a bit more reliable and experienced in this field.
If I was in the market, it would come down to: The Acadia/Enclave, the TX and the CX-9 because we need the space, and the MDX because we like it. I also like the Q7, but it wouldn't make the cut bacause it doesn't handle great. The TX would get cut out because I don't like the new look of the TX, and I want some ground clearance. I'm not a fan of the CX-9's looks either (if I wanted sporty, I'd rather have the MDX). For the sake of functionality and space, the MDX would probably get cut too, if I decided I really wasn't willing to give up the space. That would leave the lambda twins.
My wife and I went to the Auto Show in Toronto this weekend. What a great show! Lots of exotic cars: 16 Lamborghinis on display, a Rolls, a Maybach, a Maserati, Ferrari, a Mercedes McLaren SLR Roadster etc. Some nice crossover concepts and near production models too:Ford Flex, Ford Airstream, Volvo XC60, My wife hated both Fords, and loved the XC60. I liked both the Flex and the XC60. It was nice to see the new Chevy Traverse up close. It looks really nice (in my opinion). It is more similar to the Enclave than I expected, but I don't think that you would confuse the two. It also shares some looks with the Acura MDX and Mazda CX-9. And with the new DI 3.6L engine, it offers improved horsepower numbers (288). If it is less money than its' Lambda siblings, it looks like a winner to me.
As far as GM goes, I'm a Chevrolet guy myself. If the Traverse would have come out now, I would have picked it over the rest of the Lambdas in a second. More horsepower and (presumably) none of that weird transmission quirkiness is exactly what these Lambdas need. And the wife likes the looks of the Traverse, as opposed to the Acadia which is too chunky for her.
As far as GM goes, I'm a Chevrolet guy myself. If the Traverse would have come out now, I would have picked it over the rest of the Lambdas in a second. More horsepower and (presumably) none of that weird transmission quirkiness is exactly what these Lambdas need. And the wife likes the looks of the Traverse, as opposed to the Acadia which is too chunky for her.
Our current van lease is a Chevy Venture. 110K and no problems. It goes back in a week and we start driving the Enclave. We couldn't wait for the Traverse to be produced, but I know my wife preferred the looks and quietness of the Enclave anyway. We only ever had two other Chevys; a 2000 Cavalier that my daughter still drives that has had no problems except for some dash lights that burned out and the heater fan that no longer works on the slowest speed (195K); and a 1986 Suburban that was great for pulling a 24 foot camping trailer (don't remember any problems).
In fact we've never had any serious problems with any domestic vehicles we have owned. The most problematic vehicles we have owned are; 1975 Datsun 610 wagon (our first vehicle, and one that my wife couldn't wait to get rid of), and a 1994 Honda Accord which had numerous problems (probably not the Accord's fault; it was in 5 accidents; none were our fault; it was just a magnet for other cars to hit for some reason). In Honda's defense, we currently drive a 2005 Civic as a runabout vehicle, and it has been great. And I would have probably bought an Odyssey, if my wife would have been willing to drive another van.
Good point about their being better sources, and I'd go as far as even agreeing with the ones you suggest (C&D, Edmunds, and I'll add Autoweek).
I wouldn't call myself a fan of CR, but they are useful because they measure a lot of things that noone else does (payload, towing, turning radius, cargo box dimensions, etc.). So taken FWIW, I find them useful.
"Though you gotta wonder, what makes them think they're qualified to rate automobiles in the first place?"
This is another of USNews' great ideas: cull reviews from magazines / newspapers / whereever, and combine them into a single cardinal ranking. Just like they do for college / law school rankings. It's not them doing the rating, it's others. They're just putting it all together under some secret-special-sauce-weighting system.
And if you think this particular ranking is controversial, google U.S. News law school rankings controversy ...
Yeah, and could you actually open the doors and get in one hoser0eh?
I didn't go to the Toronto show, but I went to the Chicago show, and you couldn't open them there, so I doubt it. Production can't be too far away, though (I've heard June).
Comments
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/rankings/Affordable-Midsize-SUV- s/
1. Honda Pilot (9.0)
2. Nissan Murano (8.9)
3. Buick Enclave (8.7)
4. GMC Acadia (8.5)
5. Saturn Outlook (8.3)
5. Toyota FJ Cruiser (8.3)
7. Jeep Grand Cherokee (8.1)
8. Ford Edge (8.0)
8. Mazda CX7 (8.0)
8. Subaru Tribeca (8.0)
8. Toyota Highlander Hybrid (8.0)
12. Hyundai Santa Fe (7.9)
12. Nissan Pathfinder (7.9)
12. Toyota Highlander (7.9)
15. Chrysler Pacifica (7.7)
15. Ford Explorer (7.7)
17. Mitsubishi Endeavour (7.6)
17. Toyota 4 Runner (7.6)
19. Hummer H3 (7.5)
20. LIncoln MKX (7.4)
21. Mercury Moutaineer (7.3)
22. GMC Envoy (6.8)
23. Chevy Trailblazer (6.2)
24. Isuzu Ascender (5.6)
They did not include some of the vehicles that this site is concerned with, such as the CX9, VC, Taurus X. However, it is interesting to read their reviews on the vehicles in the list.
What I found most interesting, is that their rankings can change over time, based on new information gathered from other sources. They sources include all the newspaper based automotive reviewers in the US.
It just means that Mazda sent a better fruit basket than Subaru or GM! All companies play the same tricks, don't you worry. What tends to help the CX-9 is its sports sedan-like ride, which reviewers apparently tend to favor. That seems makes up for other deficits.
I recently bought a CX-9, and it's a joy to carve the corners. Much better feel than the Acadia, Highlander, or Veracruz. Third row is more comfortable than the Acadia, imo (better seats, more knee space, not as low to the ground), but headroom is lacking for tall people, and ease of access to that third row is better in the Acadia if you have captains chairs.
Also of note, I saw several references to the CX-9 throughout every review of the 7 seater crossovers, but, yet it's not on the list. Does that make any sense? How is the Trailblazer and H3 ranked and the CX-9 is not? Am I the only one here scratching my head??
Okay, but what are the numbers of the CX-7 compared to a competitor like the Murano or Edge?
True, except I'd say Pontiac is headed in the direction of defining and separating itself from the others. THe real problem is Saturn and Chevy. They sit right on top of each other.
I second that. The Pilot is more for those who want more of an SUV package, and those capabilities. The TX is for someone who needs to seat 6-7 but really wants a car. And it would have sold well had it been targeted in that direction. Look at the new Toyota Venza. It's targeted right for that markte (except for seating 5) and it will sell great. Some sexy, more carlike Edge styling, and it would have been a hit.
I'll go with power, and maybe technology in the bluetooth category, but size wize, the Pilot is a great fit. The third row is just as comfortable as in a CX-9, and the 12 cuft loss in cargo space isn't that bad considering the foot loss in length. The Pilot does a great job with it's small dimensions (though that's probably because it's a box). However, for 40g, I wouldn't even be looking at these two. I'd get an MDX.
Really, I'd have to say right. Minivan sales down? Have you driven an Uplander? Go sit in one and you'll figure it out. Those sales from '06 are probably down 75% from 2005, too. The Envoy and siblings, as well as the Suburban and it's siblings have also been losing sales, as the SUV market has been diminishing. That's the reason these CUVs are here. But I did say in the post you replied to that the lambdas very well could be taking some of these sales, as, unlike the CX-9, the lambdas come from a company that produces many overlapping vehicles (like Envoys and Yukons and Uplanders).
Some people aren't big mileage drivers. One of my friends has a '00 Mustang with 15,000 miles on it that he drives around the corner to work every day.
I have a 7 year old vehicle in my garage with over 130k miles and my primary driving vehicle (3 years old) with over 50k miles. And those numbers would be signifigcantly larger if we didn't have a third vehicle that takes some of the miles(especially my car-I drive the 3rd vehicle to work 40% of the time, now). 3k miles to me is nothing.
I totally agree. And while I think you should have more criteria than looks, if you don't like the way you're vehicle looks, then you're doing nothing but making a huge monthly payment. Mine in this case is the Subaru Tribeca. It could get 30 mpg and have more the most room inside, and best handling of any vehicle on this froum, but I would still never get near one with my checkbook.
I also think you should pay your car off and have it at least a year after before moving to something different. So I think you should get something you know you will be happy with for 5 years (I always pay mine off years before the final note is due, just in case).
No way! I think Subaru made a mistake in the drawing board and ran with it! I think the CX-9 looks awkward and disproportionate, but decent- not that bad. Though a little too van like for my tastes, it decently achieves it's goal of looking sporty. I don't know where Subaru was going- especially with the original.
Wow! That's one I've never heard before. The Acadia has third row seats the closest to a minivan (not right on the floor, like the others). Maybe it's a 6+ ft thing, but I would never go near the CX-9's third row for a trip. The Lambdas, I could do easily (but you're right- the CX-9's headroom does factor into that). They are so much more comfortable to me. PM gave ease of third row access to the VC? Smartslide is so much easier to use to get to the way back.
Have to agree with you about the Tribeca - to my eyes it is very generic on the exterior and has a weird looking interior.
I didm't mean to imply the the look was the only factor, but like the Cadillac commercial, it has to turn me on (at least to a degree). Maybe that is why I never bought a Volvo
Honda Pilot #1?
isuzu, I guess they didn't get the memo that isuzu sold, maybe 6 vehicles here last year and aren't coming back.
that's as pointless a review if there ever was one.
The CX-7 sells no where near the numbers of the Murano or Edge. As a matter of fact, Mazda sells a fraction of the vehicles that either Ford or Nissan sells. Mazda is the 4th largest auto manufacturer from Japan. They are a pretty small company.
Take this into account. Mazda never had a vehicle in that class before, so, with 41,600 sales in 2007, I'm pretty sure there were a lot of previous Ford and Nissan customers that now own Mazda. In fact, 80% of people stepping foot into a Mazda dealership have never even test driven a Mazda before, and close to 90% have never owned a Mazda before. So, with the sale numbers of the CX-7, it's safe to say that 37,440 CX-7 owners were driving another brand before hand. I bet there are a lot of previous Ford and Nissan owners in there. That is a more telling story.
So the point is it's all about relativety. A better thing to say would be that CX-7 is recieving the sales numbers Mazda targeted. Because these may be the numbers Mazda wants, but incomparison to what other competitors are selling, these numbers are very small.
My thoughts: It was a pretty good show. All of the automakers had something.
In the CUV category-
The Chevy Traverse definitely looks better in person. At first I needed some warming up to it (though there were some aspects I did like) after seeing it, the styling is nice, and compliments Chevy nicely.
The Pilot looks so much better in person. I'm not saying it looks great, but the exterior styling is okay. If you're set on buying a Honda (like all those die hard Toyonda fans out there) you're not even looking at styling.
The Dodge Journey still bores me. Styling aside, it's a good move for Chrysler (and they ned all the good moves they can get). But If I needed something that size, I'd go get a Veracruz- maybe even a Pilot.
The Toyota Venza? It looks decently good, but Toyota's not fooling anybody. That's nothing but a Camry wagon. And like Ford, they changed the name because they know the wagon is "uncool" :P . It will still sell great.
To me, it's like they tried to bland the front up, but it still retains it's awkward shape.
I didm't mean to imply the the look was the only factor, but like the Cadillac commercial, it has to turn me on (at least to a degree). Maybe that is why I never bought a Volvo
Oh I understand. I really think styling has a place on everyone's list, whether they will admit it or not. I've heard even the most conservative functionality based posters on this board say something about a style that they like or didn't like.
It was a Tribeca.
I don't see any resemblance.
In other news, someone in a Frontier flipped their rig right in the middle of the two lane as we were heading down after lunch. Guess there's a bit of black ice out there.
It was a Tribeca.
I don't see any resemblance.
I can see some resemblance to the last gen Town & Country actually. From certain angles anyway. The big difference in size is enough to make me not think the Tribeca is a minivan though.
Personally I think the new Tribeca is pretty decent looking. It's not exciting or drop dead gorgeous, but it's likeable IMO. Definietly better than their first effort. My neighbor has one of those and it amazes me how ugly it is every time I see it. You just have to stare at it sometimes. :surprise:
That's correct. In this world, you need to concentrate on what you need to do to succeed, and not worry about what your competition is doing. Since Mazda does not have the capabilities produce units like Honda / Toyota / Nissan / Ford / GM, they are best suited to stick to their guns, and steadily grow as a company. Which is what they are doing and doing well.
I see it. That's a comment I made when I first saw it. The headlights and grille, along with the downward sloping hood make it look like the last gen. Town and Country, as someone else mentioned.
In other news, someone in a Frontier flipped their rig right in the middle of the two lane as we were heading down after lunch. Guess there's a bit of black ice out there.
The weather's been bad lately. I guess this is one of the perks of having a CUV/ vehicle with all wheel drive.
you're right, that's because there is none...
"Guess there's a bit of black ice out there."
considering the thaw with above freezing weather yesterday here, I doubt black ice was a factor in an SUV rolling over.
I guess I'll have to pay more attention to the Tribeca/Caravan looks. It was a newer Tribeca without that nose, but I'm fixated on the good old days when I had a boxy Voyager.
Back in the days when the minivan was "cool".
Um, it's a Pickup Truck.
Also, it's rather funny that the Pilot finishes last in the PM test and then first with US News.
Though you gotta wonder, what makes them think they're qualified to rate automobiles in the first place?
I'd rank their merit to do so just below Family Circle magazine.
(side note: I think they actually do award a family car of the year, something like that)
PM usually offers a unique perspective, but I would trust them more to evaluate car gadgets vs. entire cars. Like GPS systems, maybe.
First off, why focus on the 3rd row when it's the least used seating position? What about front seat comfort? Isn't that more important?
I guess it's nice that someone tried the 3rd rows and the cargo room, but just how important are those compared to the 1st and 2nd rows?
They also show but don't specifically mention the Highlander's non-split 3rd row, which should have been emphasized given their focus on the 3rd row.
In the Veracruz video, he actually calls the Hyundai "this Saturn", though it's just a slip because he'd been comparing the two.
I'd rather see PM focus on, say, the differences in the AWD systems. Something more up their ally than 3rd row seat comfort.
OK, rant over, back to your regularly scheduled program...
Unfortunately, who pay more money for ad, that will get better rating.
I went and test drove dozen different vehicle, so i have rated Acadia and CX-9 best value for the money.I have prefered getting Acadia 1. better deal; 2. quiter inside; 3. more space for the driver; 4. close by dealership; 5.Mazda still unknown brand for me. Don't know what expect.
That's easy. They are for different markets. You can't say the MKX is better than the Murano- they don't compete. The MKX is more expensive, and since it's luxury it should be nicer. How would the MKX rate in comparison to an MDX (obviously not well).
Though you gotta wonder, what makes them think they're qualified to rate automobiles in the first place?
If CR can do it (and according to all their diehard fans they can) than PM is qaulified to.
It's little more than advertisment. If you're loooking for a car, don't just go off of them. Before doing YOUR OWN assessment, read MT or C&D and then go to edmunds.com. I think we can all agree these sources are a bit more reliable and experienced in this field.
The Acadia/Enclave, the TX and the CX-9 because we need the space, and the MDX because we like it. I also like the Q7, but it wouldn't make the cut bacause it doesn't handle great. The TX would get cut out because I don't like the new look of the TX, and I want some ground clearance. I'm not a fan of the CX-9's looks either (if I wanted sporty, I'd rather have the MDX). For the sake of functionality and space, the MDX would probably get cut too, if I decided I really wasn't willing to give up the space. That would leave the lambda twins.
Some nice crossover concepts and near production models too:Ford Flex, Ford Airstream, Volvo XC60, My wife hated both Fords, and loved the XC60. I liked both the Flex and the XC60.
It was nice to see the new Chevy Traverse up close. It looks really nice (in my opinion). It is more similar to the Enclave than I expected, but I don't think that you would confuse the two. It also shares some looks with the Acura MDX and Mazda CX-9. And with the new DI 3.6L engine, it offers improved horsepower numbers (288). If it is less money than its' Lambda siblings, it looks like a winner to me.
Our current van lease is a Chevy Venture. 110K and no problems. It goes back in a week and we start driving the Enclave. We couldn't wait for the Traverse to be produced, but I know my wife preferred the looks and quietness of the Enclave anyway.
We only ever had two other Chevys; a 2000 Cavalier that my daughter still drives that has had no problems except for some dash lights that burned out and the heater fan that no longer works on the slowest speed (195K); and a 1986 Suburban that was great for pulling a 24 foot camping trailer (don't remember any problems).
In fact we've never had any serious problems with any domestic vehicles we have owned. The most problematic vehicles we have owned are; 1975 Datsun 610 wagon (our first vehicle, and one that my wife couldn't wait to get rid of), and a 1994 Honda Accord which had numerous problems (probably not the Accord's fault; it was in 5 accidents; none were our fault; it was just a magnet for other cars to hit for some reason).
In Honda's defense, we currently drive a 2005 Civic as a runabout vehicle, and it has been great. And I would have probably bought an Odyssey, if my wife would have been willing to drive another van.
I wouldn't call myself a fan of CR, but they are useful because they measure a lot of things that noone else does (payload, towing, turning radius, cargo box dimensions, etc.). So taken FWIW, I find them useful.
This is another of USNews' great ideas: cull reviews from magazines / newspapers / whereever, and combine them into a single cardinal ranking. Just like they do for college / law school rankings. It's not them doing the rating, it's others. They're just putting it all together under some secret-special-sauce-weighting system.
And if you think this particular ranking is controversial, google U.S. News law school rankings controversy ...
Yeah, and could you actually open the doors and get in one hoser0eh?
I didn't go to the Toronto show, but I went to the Chicago show, and you couldn't open them there, so I doubt it. Production can't be too far away, though (I've heard June).