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
Can you cite the legislation that made it law? It is likely that these are "advisory signs", not the state law. Just curious about it...
In CA one often finds such signs, but in Europe it is written into the law (no signs are needed).
Quite possibly, I was just wondering if it was speculation or there were some published numbers...
Well, I happened to start off a tank right onto the Interstate yesterday, Northridge CA to Anaheim CA. The traffic was variable, but we never got stopped. MPG showed 33.0 when I pulled in to the restaurant in Buena Park. Speed varied between 55 and 75, mostly around 65. Note that I was being careful to use all possible driving techniques to save fuel. This is off of my trip computer, which has been accurate to within about .1 MPG since day one of my FS ownership.
I don't usually drive that carefully on these trips. My normal MPG is about 25 for this same route.
On the way home we hit bad traffic (a lot of stop and go for the first 20 miles), and the MPG for the overall trip was 28.0.
Just a note, it is perfectly legal to pass on the right in CA - both on secondary roads and interstates.
Huh? All my FS has under the floor is the spare tire...
Imagine there was a cover there to make a flat load floor, a useful feature when toting something heavy. You can't just slide a box to the edge to pick it up. You have to lift it out of that indention, which arches your back.
The rest of the CUV's in this forum have flat load floors with a little bit of under floor storage for things like jumper cables, first aid kits, etc.
unless otherwise posted, upon all limited access highways having two or more lanes for traffic moving in the same direction, all vehicles shall be driven in the right-hand lanes when available for traffic except when any of the following conditions exist:
(i) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the
same direction.
(ii) When traveling at a speed greater than the traffic flow.
(iii) When moving left to allow traffic to merge.
(iv) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection, exit or into a
private road or driveway when such left turn is legally permitted.
If you call space efficiency sacrificing usable storage area behind an occupied 3rd row efficient and pretty much shooting in the foot the purpose of buying one of these type of vehicles. What's the point of being able to carry people/kids if you can't bring along at least some of the stuff that is usually associated with doing it.
As a 'family' of one, I rarely transport more than one person in my 2005 FS so the 3rd row area is for cargo. I have attached a few images of how I utilize that area. A good sized plastic tote bin w/lid fits nicely in the area behind the flipped up/folded left seat, while the right side contains an underbed storage box. Please disregard the debri in the box on the right! Even though the FS has a few deficiences, the hauling and storage possiblities are only limited by ones imagination.
Regards -
M. J. McCloskey
Still, the third seat availability would be nice for transporting more people about town, or on a day trip where lots of overnight luggage not needed. If I have a choice between a 190" vehicle and a 200" vehicle, I am one who will go for the shorter one (for handling, maneuverability, ease of parking and unloading), but I realize I am likely in a minority on that score.
I really like, for example that six people can sit comfortably in the 180" Kia Rondo. Other than the discontinued mini-vans like Mazda's, you don't get much more space efficient than that.
That's my impression, as well, after the Houston auto show this year.
Others were either small on the outside and tiny on the inside, or large on the outside and small on the inside.
Well, you're basically driving a Volvo when you're driving the Freestyle.
OH it does mean a lot. In the Acadia, in the third row, you can sit three adults acrossed. Comfortably, not the most, but okay for 30 min trips. acadia's got the best CUV third row out there. As for manuvering, I think the Acadia manuvers much more nimbly than the Freestlye. Even with higher curb weight. And head room is good. The Pilot beats Freestyle in every area but third row space. Cargo space is just as good, and Legroom is to- especially for a foot shorter vehicle. I'd think thats the best use of size and space out there.
You just mad at my reply #745 to your post.
"i>Pilot beats Freestyle in every area but third row space" Wrong...2nd row legroom is better in the Freestyle.
Do you have a picture of people sitting "acrossed" haven't seen that before.
And actually the pilot only wins the legroom war in the 1st row by .6 inches, in the 2nd row it loses 40.4 vs. 37.4 and in the 3rd row it loses again by another significant amount 33.3 vs. 30.2, for a total of over 6" of legroom missing in it's efficient package, you sit back there then if you think that doesn't matter to passengers.
When you actually think about it that 12" less that the pilot doesn't carry around had to make a sacrifice somewhere, I think we found it, to the detriment of everyone but those in the front row but you'll be driving so it doesn't matter anyway. Also with the fact that the Pilot is 12" shorter why would it have to carry around 250-300 more lbs minimum than the FS at the cost of 3mpg in testing/more in the real world, but I digress yet again.
I still can't wrap my brain around the hypothesis;
"I'd think thats the best use of size and space out there"
Would "off topic" suffice? The whole thread was off topic which is why the hosts asked that it be suspended. And we're in jeopardy of going off topic once again which is why I am insisting that we drop this sniping and stick to the designated issues.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Yes, I have sat in the 2nd row seat, and happened to glance up to the front and noticed the glove box door in my 2005 FS. Both the left and right sides seem to bow out a bit while the center is flush (probably due to the latch). This is not noticable from the front row. Not sure if it is just my car. I will certainly look for this issue (as well as the gap in the 'A' pillar trim where it meets the dash) on the Taurus X when it is available.
Regards -
M. J. McCloskey
The Taurus X will lose a smidgen of second row legroom (but still have gobs) with the new folding seat mechanism. It still looks like a Freestyle though, and that is too plain to burn up any sales charts. For those who don't mind driving something with no more panache than a mimivan, it's a good deal all around.
I wonder how much all these improvements made from the Freestyle to the Taurus X are going to hit the bottom line.
That's how these "conservative" cars have all managed to be best-sellers at one point in their lives.
I dunno... a LOT of people with families buy these "family sedans." And they don't come cheap. The Accord and Camry, with a V6 and things like a moonroof, leather, LED instrumentation, manumatic transmissions (Camry only), and NAV have stickers well over $28,000 typically. Not cheap. A Camry can be "amenity-filled" with Push Button Start, Bluetooth, etc..., things not even offered on many of these 6+ passenger haulers.
I guess my simple point is that a FreeStyle and a Camry serve very simlar roles in my eyes; the difference being that the FreeStyle holds a little more inside. Neither are particularly sporty, glamorous, lusted-after, or longed for vehicles. They are practical. They will go to soccer games. They will go to business meetings and to Wal-Mart.
Just a dissenting opinion, not trying to push anybody's buttons.
TheGrad
My point was that if I wanted an appliance, I'd buy a minivan, not a Freestyle... or any of the vehicles in this thread.
No buttons pushed.
Camry has had some pretty plain designs, though the 92 was considered attractive at that time. The two generations between that one and the current one were awfully blah looking, but still welll-equipped, well-engineered cars. I'm not sure that was true with later Tauri.
The current one has more style than most mid-size cars what (even if it is style you don't like) with the champhered flanks, and lines that separate and define the fenders, flowing over hood and deck. More detail than past Camrys.
VERY true. I just can't decide if I like it or not. About the time I decide I think it is ugly, I see one from a good angle, with nice wheels, and decide it looks great. The new Camry is an enigma wrapped in a riddle.
I thought the three cars I posted (yes, they are older models, I did that on purpose) still look very classy today. They haven't gotten dated looking as a 1998 Taurus/Sable did, or any of the late model Buick Regal and Century did. The FreeStyle is bland, but classy. It is something that won't look decrepid on a used car lot in 8 years though. I can't say the same for outlandish designs like that 8 year old Taurus or Pontiac.
Having said all that, let me say that each of us has different priorities that we want in a car. So depending what your own priorities are, any car could be the best for you. For my own priorities, appearance, handling, sunroofs (I have a convertible - need light), the Acadia is by far the best car for me.
Just my two cents. Would like to see less "My car is best" in this forum. Everyone should accept that they made the best choice for themselves and quit being so defensive. Can we all get back to using this forum to exchange whatever information we have that can help the other users in selecting the car most suitable for them. I could be wrong.
Well then maybe Ford should only make FS seat five, since majority of family buyers have 5 members. All seats should be usable, and more so than FS, Acadia's are. Now, I would get one with captains, but it's very nice (had minivan in recent years) to have captains, and third row with 3 seats, so you can still seat seven.
Should have specified. I meant that in that the Pilot has the most interior for it's size, with as much cargo room as an FS. I'm disapointed with those numbers for such a large vehicle. I hear a lot about the Acadia being too large- but doesn't handle that way, and in no other SUV do you get that kind of space-except Suburban. Did I mention 35 cu ft of space over FS? And nice step in hieght (not too high).
Personally I'd rather have the 2nd row bench, since most of the time I'm only using the 2nd row. I like the option of being able to seat 5 and lots of cargo space with the 3rd row down. Plus we've had the car seat in the middle of the 2nd row, which is safer than putting car seats in 2nd row captain chairs.
To me, 2nd row captain chairs is just a waste of space unless you're always using the 3rd row, in which case I'd get an Odyssey or Sienna, which are so big inside that you don't really miss the extra space in the 2nd row. My Freestyle is more like our car with a big cargo area. But then when we do carry a few more adults, then it's handy having the extra space for adults in the 3rd row. But I couldn't imagine using a CUV-type vehicle if I was using the 3rd row a lot of the time because even the best CUV 3rd row is cramped compared to a minivan and with 1/2 the cargo space behind the 3rd row. But that's just my opinion....
I drove the Veracruz and was very impressed. This is easily one of the best mid-to-large crossovers in the segment. The ride was absolutely fantastic, and the powerful 3.8L V6, mated with the 6 speed, it had no problem making it up steep hills. The biggest surprise to me was the quietness of the cabin during operation, even during high revs. The exterior looked striking, while the elegant interior made the driving experience even more enjoyable. I would recommend this car to anyone in the market, and would go as far as taking this over the RX, and bank at least the ten grand differences.
I think in all these vehicles, you need to look at the 3rd row as 'occasional' use. If you are looking at it for full time use - go with a mini van, excursion, suburban etc.
I will be regularly using the third row for the 5th passenger. Being able to provide my teenage daughter with some breathing room from her brothers using the captains chairs, and providing some separation between the 2 boys by putting one in the 2nd row and one in the 3rd, is priceless to me. So my choices are:
- Suburban (too huge)
- Freestyle or Pacifica (too small)
- Minivan (have had one for 10 years and loved it, but don't need one for the next 10 years)
- Acadia/Outlook/Enclave (these appear to be the "Goldilocks" ones for us - just right)
And if you like removing it and storing it somewhere when you need the cargo space. Absolutely pathetic of GM to put something like that out on the market in this day and age.
I'm 6' and the most comfortable third row seat I've ever sat in (can't say I've sat in any of the new CUVs though) was that of a 2005 Expedition with the second row captains chairs. I fit in our '06 Explorer's third row but I wouldn't want to be back there too long.
In summary, if third row comfort is a major concern, go with a large SUV or large minivan. I don't think these mid-sizers are for you. Just MHO.