Crossover SUV Comparison

dooga

I was not aware that Hyundai made a crossover SUV 15 years ago. I have a 2007 Santa Fe and its the only vehicle I've owned that doesn't rattle, (Chevy's, Fords, Jeeps, Suzuki, Porsche). I guess I have another 14 years to enjoy before I have a rattle.

baggs32

I was not aware that Hyundai made a crossover SUV 15 years ago.

They didn't. If you read the article is does not state that the Hyundai in question was an SUV, CUV, sedan, or coupe. It only states the brand Hyundai in general.

dooga

This is an SUV Forum, not a "General Forum

baggs32

Yeah, and the entire article was about an SUV. They compared a specific aspect of that SUV to a brand that had a bad rep in the past, that's all. Since I posted the article in an SUV forum is that supposed to mean it changes what the author wrote? What don't you get? :confuse:

kellz

I thought the Q7 was nice inside. It was just too big on the outside for such a small size on the inside. I liked the R-class more, despite it's more vanish look (is there something wrong with saying van on this board?). Andit was too true SUV for me. I came to the conclusion the Enclave was a better buy because it offers comparable luxury and a better ride for thousands less.

kellz

I was leaving the gym and saw a pearl white one. The old guy driving it must have noticed me trying to get a closer look from the next lane because he pulled away like he didn't want to be bothered. He must not have realized he was being chased by something German (wow, I sound so dangerous). As I was passing I realized how large this car is. It was huge. The veiw from the back looks nice, but I disiked it from every other angle. It may still grow on me, but for now it looks like the big box it is.

coldcranker

The thing about the Flex is that there is no better way to package the most interior space than a box, so there it is. Suburban/Tahoe owners will appreciate it. Big brother to the Scion XB and BMW MiniCooper.

bobw3

On the one hand, it's true that a boxy shape is the most efficient, but on the other hand, the Flex isn't very efficient is you look at it's exterior dimensions compared to it's interior dimensions. And Odyssey or Sienna has much more interior space for the same (or less) exterior dimensions. Don't kid yourself thinking that the Flex's box shape is for effeciency...it's strictly a styling gimmick.

fpostadan

My FIL was complaining about his '07 Veracruz Limited...

Anyone else experience this in a VC? I haven't driven it yet and was wondering if the handling was a little sloppy or if he's just not used to it yet. But it has been in his garage nearly a year now.

My normal driving the 08 VC handling feels as if the
-vehicle has the capability to do more if you push it to the limit type - of feeling. I hope I am making sense. I have not ,pushed it to the limit to where I would see the ESC Electronic Stability Control indicator blinking on the dash when engaged.

I think 07 VC was Hyundai's first year on this vehicle.

Maybe I am just too biased but I haven't owed a new car, just used cars (95 Altima SE and an old school 73 Mustange) until now. Though I get to feel some new cars from race simulators through the PC or game console.

coldcranker

The Flex has the narrowest width of all these in comparison: Compare Flex to Other Big Vehicles click here. Scroll down when in there to see the exterior dimensions and interior room measurements.

I like the slightly narrower width of the Flex; makes it easier to park. Its not quite so portly (aka, "fat") as the others, yet has great interior space. The rear legroom of the Flex is huge compared to the others. This would make a great limo!

I like Edmunds comparison tool, so I'll bring in the TaurusX (Freestyle) and Dodge Journey. Here it is: Add TaurusX and Journey to the comparison -- click here. Note how the Flex has about the same exterior dimensions as the TaurusX(Freestyle), yet the only big advantage of the Flex is HUGE rear seat legroom! I do like the extra headroom up front of the Flex, too. The extra exterior inch width of the Flex over the TaurusX does not seem to be put to good use, as the doors of the Flex must be thicker than the TaurusX doors.

bobw3

Good link you provided, but here's one with 3rd row data too: http://www.cars.com/go/compare/trimCompare.jsp?acodes=USB90FOS351A0,USB80HOV011A- 0

The Odyssey .3" longer, 1.2" wider, and .8" higher than the Flex. While the Flex has 4" more 2nd row legroom, the Odyssey has 8" more 3rd row legroom. Also, 9" more 2nd row hiproom and 7" more in the 3rd row. And the storage behind the 3rd row is 20CuFt for the Flex and 38.4 for the Odyssey. That's what I mean by design efficiency.

But you're right that in comparison to an Acadia, the Flex measures up pretty good. The Journey is a foot shorter, so it's hard to compare.

coldcranker

The Acadia/Outlook/Enclave/Traverse (aka Lambda brethren) are so big, we may be seeing the max peak size of non-minivan crossover unit-body SUVs right now, with gas prices the way they are and expected to get higher (China/India gas demand in future, etc.) In fact, I doubt minivans will even grow any bigger either, as the largest minivans are about equal to the Lambdas as it stands now. I think the Sienna is the biggest. It will be interesting to see if the automakers don't downsize a bit; at least a few inches in length and width for their future biggest stuff. The new EPA fuel economy laws (35 MPG by 2020) means vehicles will be shrinking a bit anyway, and people are migrating toward smaller vehicles on their own with gas prices at or above $3.50/gallon or so.

Here's a challenge: Somebody name another unit-body vehicle (no truck-framed BOF vehicles allowed) that weighs more than the Lambda vehicles. I don't think mankind has ever produced a heavier unit body vehicle.

The Chevy Traverse is listed at 5,015 lbs for the AWD version, and 4,722 for the 2WD version. By the way, for the Lambda 2WD models to get 17/24 EPA MPG scores is amazing for a 4700 lb vehicle. My '05 Ford F150 2WD weighs 100 lbs less, and it has enough iron in it to build a battleship, and only gets about 20 on the highway. (OK, a small battleship.)

coldcranker

It looks like the unibody Q7 and GL550 V8 versions do weigh 5,400 lbs each, but they are not bigger in footprint than a Lambda anyway. I almost don't want to count those, since most people can't afford their $60,000 price tag, but they are the most massive unibody vehicles produced, unless anyone knows of any others.

coldcranker

Looks like the expert vehicle analysts at Car and Driver have tested the Flex, so we can get a better picture of where it stands relative to the CX-9, TaurusX, Edge, Acadia/Outlook/Traverse/Enclave, Freestyle, etc. Interesting observations made.

The latest full test drive of the Flex appears in the Sept. '08 issue of Car and Driver, out now. I chuckled at some of the odd lines they had in there about the Flex:

---- styling is "T-square chic"
---- looks like a billboard starter kit
---- Look for the hilarious salesman-customer simulated conversation in there where they go over the Flex, Edge, and TaurusX, near the beginning of the article.

Car and Driver hated the seats (looks like plastic bags, uncomfortable) and they say that understeer starts too soon in a turn. Otherwise, the Flex looks like quality materials, is very quiet, and feels very solid. For some reason, even though the GMC Acadia is slightly heavier, the Acadia is faster 0-60 than the Flex with about the same horsepower. The Flex and Acadia use the same transmission (maybe a little difference in gear ratios in there), so I guess the Acadia engine must have better low-end torque. It might be Acadia's direct injection, something the Flex unfortunately doesn't have in the current model. Fuel economy between the Flex and Acadia is about the same, with the 2009 Acadia possibly pulling ahead with the direct injection, so the Acadia/Outlook wins with better acceleration in a heavier vehicle, with lower fuel consumption on top of all that compared to the Flex.

ateixeira

You made several good points, but I'll add one big one: the Ody is $7-8 grand cheaper (TMV) than those crossovers, as well.

coldcranker

ateixeira said: ".....the Ody is $7-8 grand cheaper (TMV) than those crossovers...."

The Odyssey is priced about middle of the pack, maybe about 1 or 2 thousand bucks separating it from a rival choice. There are much cheaper CUVs with some room inside. Any can be had for somewhere in the area of 20-30 thousand bucks.
Now I see why the Journeys have been flying off dealers lots lately -- bargain.

The cheapest Journey goes for $20,000.
The cheapest XL-7 goes for $21,000.
The cheapest Santa Fe goes for $22,000.
The cheapest Odyssey minivan goes for $26,000.
The cheapest Edge goes for $26,000.
The cheapest Pilot goes for $27,000.
The cheapest Veracruz goes for $27,000.
The cheapest TaurusX goes for $27,000.
The cheapest Flex goes for $28,000.
The cheapest Outlook goes for $28,500.
The cheapest CX-9 is $29,000.
All MSRPs.
I don't see a lot of difference, except for the Journey, XL-7, and Santa Fe seem to be the bargains in large-ish CUVs.

Actually, with discounting, which Ford does more than anyone, the TaurusX and Edge are really priced at around $23k or so. I don't think Honda reduces their price much below sticker. (Anyone know of regular, habitual discounts on Hondas? I don't think they budge too often on price.)

ateixeira

Minivans are getting STEEP discounts. The Ody LX doesn't cost anywhere near that amount.

I was pointing out the differences in the numbers from that comparison link listed above.

coldcranker

The '08 TaurusX is getting rebates which put it at a cash price of $24, maybe $23 on a good day at a Ford dealership, which is a great vehicle at a good price. The '08 Odyssey can be had for about $22 on a good day from Honda (Edmunds TMV). Therefore, I still don't see the 7-8 thousand dollars difference. That is a great price on a basic, no-frills LX Odyssey. The Flex is probably not seeing big discounts yet, but I predict they will have to later. The 4-cylinder Journey may not be discounted much, I'd bet, since its so cheap to start with. I do agree that anyone looking for a Toyota or Honda minivan should go for it at those model year-end prices.

You know what is really interesting and surprising is that the Toyota Sienna minivan is actually cheaper (Edmunds TMV) than the Hyundai Entourage! A Korean vehicle cheaper than a Japanese competitor? Amazing.

ateixeira

These were your numbers I was referring to:

National True Market Value (TMV®) Price $28,295
customize $28,680
customize $21,821 (this was the Ody)
customize $26,790
customize $25,419
customize

That's what I was referring to, e.g. your source. I was merely making an observations on the numbers you provided!

Perhaps the equipment levels were not comparable or new incentives have arrived since then.

It's tricky to price an Entourage because their "Limited" model isn't truly loaded, a moonroof is still optional for instance. Of course Toyota is guilty there as well, you need a PhD to understand their options packages, plus they change it every year.

coldcranker

".............It's tricky to price an Entourage because their "Limited" model isn't truly loaded, a moonroof is still optional for instance. Of course Toyota is guilty there as well, you need a PhD to understand their options packages, plus they change it every year..........."

The best way to compare is to start with the cheapest, base model of each. Most beginning with the '08 model year come with a lot of airbags and stability control standard, so the comparison is not bad. With options, the price can go up fast. Someone on a budget might shop for the base version of a given model. With that, the '08 Odyssey, if you can find a base version out there, is 6 thousand cheaper than an '09 Flex just appearing in showrooms. Someone stuck on getting a Honda might want the Pilot, at about 5,000 more than an Odyssey, and realize the model year-end deal on the Odyssey is the bargain.

The base Odyssey LX is about the cost of the Suzuki XL-7, and I'd say the Odyssey is the better deal. However, with the XL-7, you can wear black leather when in it and look cool/tough because Suzuki also makes motorcycles, while the Odyssey minivan only looks good in front of Toys-R-Us.

ateixeira

I dunno, I don't buy in to the whole "Suzuki makes motorcycles so the XL7 is cool" idea. There is more of GM's DNA in an XL7 vs. any motorcycle.

Plus, you climb out of a crossover with a diaper bag and a little baby girl in your arms and it's sort of hard to look cool.

Cute, maybe, but not cool.

coldcranker

Joking about the whole motorcycle=CUV coolness factor. However, most people have a psychological problem with minivans and their image.

ateixeira

I'm not insecure.



Truth is, both have their uses. Our Forester has been great, and it will be our only snow vehicle. The clearance and AWD should come in handy, plus our mileage keeps improving. We were getting 34mpg on one all-highway stretch.

bobw3

It's really hard for me to understand why driving an Acadia or other big CUV improves someone's "image" as compared to driving an Odyssey or Sienna? I mean when they're sitting in their CUV with their family cramped back in 2nd and 3rd rows, doesn't make them feel worse than if they were driving an Odyssey with a whole lot more space to spread out inside and 50% more cargo space? Maybe I'm just too logical in my thinking?? It just seems to me if you're going to spend $30K on a family vehicle and are going to use all three rows of seats, unless you really, reallly need AWD, why would you not buy an Odyssey or Sienna...just because of the perceived image??? My brain stopped thinking like that after I graduated high school!!

coldcranker

It may be silly thinking, but I can't count how many people I've personally seen (and heard of through marketing statistics tossed around) that say they wouldn't be caught dead in a minivan, instead opting for a big SUV/truck with half the MPG because it makes them feel like King of the Road, or it projects a tougher image to those around. We have a semi-nerdy Freestyle which we love, and we have an '05 2wd Ford F150 pickup used mostly for short trips or hauling, bought for $18,400 brand new. For me, I do like the added safety in the F150, the over-engineered ruggedness, the cheapness for a new vehicle with V8 and air conditioning, and the ability to toss big loads in the back. One thing you can say about the cheapest model of F150 is that you really get your money's worth. I would hate its MPG on long trips, but the Freestyle is there for that. Only short trips for the F150!!! For people who drive SUVs and pickups long distances every day, that is ridiculous at $3.80/gallon gas, but they like the "commanding road presence" and commute long distances in them to feed some ego issues. Those big vehicles have supplied the Saudis with plenty of money to fund Bin Laden-style causes.

About the CUVs, the real subject here, there was an article saying that CUVs sales were surprisingly down as people now want cars with a good-size trunk instead of these station wagons on steroids. Many of these CUVs (Freestyle for one) gets better MPG than a lot of big cars out there, so I don't completely understand why CUVs aren't a little more popular right now.

saabturboid

coldcranker wrote:

About the CUVs, the real subject here, there was an article saying that CUVs sales were surprisingly down as people now want cars with a good-size trunk instead of these station wagons on steroids. Many of these CUVs (Freestyle for one) gets better MPG than a lot of big cars out there, so I don't completely understand why CUVs aren't a little more popular right now.

I am not surprised CUV sales are down. We have an '05 AWD Freestyle that we love, but have been bit hard by gas prices. The computer says the Freestyle only manages 16.5mpg with mixed city/suburban driving. On long road trips it typically manages 22mpg. This is lower than some other Freestyle owners report, but I believe it is most likely due to it being an AWD model which we do utilize in our long Minnesota winters.

By contrast our other car is a 2001 Saab 9-5 wagon. This is classified as a large car with a good sized cargo area. In the same type of city/suburban driving this car manages about 24mpg. On the highway it does better than 30, so by driving it instead of the more roomy Freestyle we increase our MPG by about 8. This is a significant difference for us because we have to drive a lot, so this summer we have been driving the Saab more often and the Freestyle less.

We love our Freestyle, but next time we go to buy a car we will likely look for something that gets much better fuel economy. I just wish something roomy like the Freestyle was available with a diesel engine that allowed it to get 30mph on the highway. I don't see why this isn't possible with some diesel cars getting 50mpg on the highway.

- Chad

explorerx4

between the cuv's not getting a whole lot better mileage than many suv's and the big decline in suv values, there isn't much incentive to consider one.
my explorer is 6 years old, has 83k on it averaging 16 mpg and runs great.
i am keeping it and bought a sedan with a large trunk.

coldcranker

For a reference on the surprising (to some) CUV sales drop: CUV sales down, references Wall St. Jnl.

The '01 Saab 9-5 wagon with automatic gets slightly worse MPG than my '05 Freestyle 2wd. ....www.fueleconomy.gov database..... I don't understand why there are some Freestyles (especially AWD versions) that don't get good MPG. I have elaborate theories why some don't, some which sound more like they come from Mel Gibson's character in "Conspiracy Theory, 1997", which in my case involve manufacturing variations and the weakness in the CVT design to fail to control steel belt tension nominal levels. Don't know for sure, but I have some evidence of this. The low MPG in some Freestyles appears to be real, as it affected the first Freestyle that Consumer Reports got a hold of for their first test of it, reporting 12 MPG then! Do you think Ford would ever admit this? Yeah, right. Related conspiracy theory: Ford quit using the CVT because of this design performance weakness in some percentage of vehicles.

explorerx4

my wife had an '01 saab 9-5se(v6 turbo) wagon for three years. it looked great and got very good gas mileage. it was a horrible vehicle to drive in snow.

ateixeira

Maybe I'm just too logical in my thinking??

Amen to that.

unless you really, reallly need AWD, why would you not buy an Odyssey or Sienna

You can even get AWD on a Sienna, though you'll have to take the run-flats along with it.

We like our Forester, but it would be nice if Subaru also offered their Exiga here, i.e. a small minivan to compete with the Mazda5 and Kia Rondo.

volkov

I was in the local dealer again recently and while waiting for my salesman, I had the chance to eavesdrop on a conversation going on between the finance manager and a customer. They were a middle aged to retired couple looking to buy a passenger car and trade-in their SUV with 10 months remaining on its lease. They became quite upset when it was explained to them that their vehicle was worthless and in fact, the cheapest thing to do was to pay off the remaining ten payments and then return the SUV. The finance manager was very reasonable and simply tried to explain the realities of residual values and the current market. I have to say that I had no sympathy for the customers. They did not appear unsophistocated or financially disadvantaged but the gentleman couldn't get past the difference between residual value and a guaranteed trade in value. I don't care what any salesman might have said, if leasing costs 2/3 the monthly payment of financing, don't expect a big payout at the end - it's simple common sense. If you want to cut and run earlier, don't expect to get off for free. You will always be upside down on a lease - the current realities just made it worse. The irony here is that the customer isn't the victim, it's the leasing corporations. Leases have in fact gutted the Big 3 to the point they have dropped them or are dropping any incentives on rates since their recent losses are measured in the billion$. The bad news for us is that good lease rates or even leasing itself (especially in Canada) are gone, but the upside is that prices and finance deals for CUV's should be generous for those of us looking to buy in the near future.

volkov

I've said before, if Exiga was available in N/A, I'd have one in my driveway right now. CUV, minivan, SUV who cares. Well priced, AWD, 6-7 passenger seating and good gas mileage are 4 simple criteria, but hard to find. Adding to that I want traction control and stability control. It's not unreasonable and borders on frustrating when vehicles with these specs are available in other markets such as Europe, Australia and Japan. One can add the Toyota Venza to this list which meets the criteria and offers a 3rd row in other parts of the world but not the USA or Canada which will only see 2 rows and seating for 5. Why??

ateixeira

Indeed, check out the RWTIV thread, a new heart gets broken every day. We see this all the time:

What is my big SUV worth?

$2000 less than it was worth last week, and probably $2000 more than it will be worth next week. :sick:

volkov

It is just much worse for the old big SUV dinosaurs. In Canada things have been exagerated by increased flow of cheaper used vehicles from the US when our dollar climbed close to parity. In the 6 months we have been seriously shopping, the trade in value of my 04 WRX dropped $5k!

ateixeira

Have you seen the Kia Borrego ads? They're trying to pitch it as a luxury SUV.

I'm kind of surprised. I guess they have to market it to people who are immune to high gas prices.

thegraduate

I like how they are tongue-in-cheek about the luxury part in those commercials though. They know they aren't a Lexus GX470 or anything like that, and they pretty much tell it.

Kia did miss the boat by 10 years on this one, though.

ateixeira

Agreed on both counts.

robm2

Similar situation, here. I've got a 2004 4-Runner SR5 V8 that I could given back on a lease, (before the bottom fell out of the truck/suv market), but instead paid out the residual.

As gas prices started climbing through the roof, my desire to drive the V8 started diminishing. However, I heard an interesting radio show, that unless you're dumping the truck/suv for a very cheap car, (Fit, Yaris, Versa, Aveo, etc), you will not be saving any money, as the savings in gas are outweighed by the depreciation in the vehicle.

Further, if you go from a truck/suv into a compact, or sub-compact vehicle, you are losing the function of the truck/suv that you purchased in the first place.

It is better to be light on the pedal of the truck/suv, and eek out the best mileage possible, presuming one has already paid for the vehicle.

bobw3

you will not be saving any money, as the savings in gas are outweighed by the depreciation in the vehicle.

Depends on how many miles you drive. You may end up saving thousands of dollars per year by unloading the SUV, so even if you lose $5000 in selling the SUV, you'll make that up in a couple of years in gas savings, again, depending on the miles you drive, the price of gas, and the MPG difference of the new car.

ateixeira

That's why your true needs should determine what you end up with, just as they should have the day you bought the vehicle new.

I think the people complaining the loudest are the ones that didn't need a large SUV in the first place.

Folks who tow boats and really haul heavy loads will just grin and bear it. In fact I bet they'll be happy when the posuers trade down and lower demand for oil, dropping prices further.

coldcranker

All this talk about how towing means you have to drive an old dinosaur body-on-frame SUV, thats mostly wrong. The Acadia/Outlook/Traverse/Enclave CUV clones with unit bodies and better MPG, will tow up to 4,500 lbs, which should be enough for most poeple. When not towing in those CUVs, you should be able to cruise on the highway at 25 MPG if you take it easy at about 60 to 65 mph. My short-bed '05 F150 V8 2wd, by comparison, can't seem to get over 20 MPG no matter what I do. Of course, if you get 4wd versions of CUVs or SUVs, then subtract 1.5 MPG. Point is, most people can just get a CUV (the subject of this forum).

ateixeira

4500 lbs is pretty decent, I guess I had my friend's race car and trailer in mind, and his is way over that limit.

Call it a middle weight, I suppose.

volkov

Depends what you are towing. Small to moderate sized weekend boat maybe. Some of us tow camping trailers. You better be towing a pop-up or at most a hybrid if that's your limit. Travel trailers capable of sleeping 6-7 (to reflect the seating capacity) are going to weigh that much dry, and be well beyond it loaded to camp and with the weight of passengers and gear subtracted from your towing capacity. (Don't forget that max towing is based on 150lb driver and otherwise empty vehicle).
Add to that the rule of thumb to keep your trailer to 85% of max limit for extended towing. Go to the RV boards and you'll see tons of threads where the old timers point out that even some tent trailers are over the limit of the V-6's towing them.

baggs32

For 2009 Ford is making its trailer sway control standard on all of its BOF SUVs and trucks. As far as I can tell they are not even offering it on unibody vehicles, even the Flex which can tow 4500 lbs also IIRC. If I were towing, I'd want that extra safety feature and would sacrifice an mpg or two for it.

Kirstie_H

A reporter with a large national newspaper would like to speak with consumers who purchased a crossover vehicle in the past couple of months. If you are a new crossover vehicle owner, please respond to ctalati@edmunds.com with your daytime contact information no later than Thursday, August 21st.

psfod3

I was looking at a rogue SL awd with the premium pkg. The stcker was about $25,100. It gets 26 mpg hyw. Has a 4cyl and can only tow 1000lbs. The mark up off of invoice was only around $1,000. and the dealer was not ready to take alot off sticker saying the cars are selling. The murano SL ( no pkg) had a sticker around $31,000 has a 6cyl but gets 23 mpg hyw. and can tow up to 3500 lbs. the dealer would give me a 09 Murano awd SL for $26,500 wich is a heavy dicount saying they are not selling as well. with this heavy discount it seems that the price difference is only around $2,200 for a much more stable powerful suv. The mpg hyw is almost the same. As far as the Murano needing premium fuel, I am told it is only recommended. Is this a no brainer or am I missing something here?

volkov

Murano is much thirstier in city driving. Still, the relative discount more than makes up for the difference in cost of fuel over the lifetime you expect. The question is, how long will you drive it, and could it even have a lower resale than the Rogue? Not a stretch given the sudden shift in buying habits which borders on hysteria. I personally think that from an emotional standpoint, the Murano is much nicer.

ateixeira

Not to mention the Rogue just feels too small to be all that useful. I'm not sure if it has any more useful space than a Versa does. Plus you can barely see out of it, the blind spots are so bad.

I kind of like the styling, but it's definitely form over function.

My wife thought it looked like an egg and never even sat inside.

The CVT and fuel efficiency appealed to me, but we were shopping for her car, so we never even drove the Rogue. I did sit in one at a car show.

The Murano is better sized, but to be honest I think if I had to buy a Nissan it would be a Versa with the 6 speed manual transmission, or maybe an Altima.

ateixeira

Let's wake up this thread a bit...what upgrades are here for 2009?

I read that the Traverse will get 288hp with the optional dual exhaust, plus the tow rating was just increased.

The CX9 supposedly got a trip computer standard, which to me is a must-have.

What else is new?

mattandi

Is direct injection coming to all the Lambdas?

There are some new kids on the playground. Journey, Flex, yada yada. I'm sure everyone agrees those are upgrades. :P