I have a feeling that the Acadia will be the more popular choice out there, simply because it does have more room. Most people won't use that room, but will feel good that it's there if they ever need it.
The Acadia does look more like a typical SUV, i.e. boxy, which looks a little more rugged than the curved lines of the CX-9, Veracruz, and even the Enclave--I think that will also appeal to people who might have been considering a traditional SUV.
Ford has me completely confused. Why are they ofering this new crossover to replace the minivan? Taurus X will do the best job at this Ford can right now. They are the same car (same underpinnigs and engines). THe FS does have some things it could improve on- like Cargo space, and styling- but if Ford can play up some other nice features and amenities, then they will generate sales. And the Ford Fairlane isn't exactly attractive. In my oppinion, it's ugly, and, judging by what I've heard on this forum, not something crossover buyers want. No one really wants a box. Many call the Acadia a box. Look at this! And can they really improve seating and cargo space form the FS? I doubt by much. Where will the Taurus X fit in? Why get the Catelina when you can have the Bonneville (not the greatest annalogy, I know).What they need is a stronger competitor to the LAmbdas-something that acts like an SUV (towing adn power) yet has the space of a minivan and carlike ride and gas mileage. And it's gotta look good. Then Ford could replace minivans and Explorer. we'll see what happens.
Ford has totally bombed with minvans all along, by constantly playing catchup just as the target moved again. Plus the Freestar still uses the old body of the original Windstar (with new front and rear ends and interior...a formula that no longer works for Ford at all). The Taurus X will either go away in a couple years, or be radically re-styled, as its present styling, even updated, is going to keep it in the also-ran category.
As for the styling of the Fairlane, a more innovative boxy look may be just what the doctor ordered. Ford already has the Edge, and now the Taurus X. One is rounded and the other has that wagon look some may go for.
The Fairlane, when first presented, didn't look like the other crossovers out there. Its boxiness wasn't boring. It also had clear advantages re: exterior size-interior room like the old minivans. And rather than being a styling bore like the Toyota Highlander or Honda Pilot (both more boxy than the others in this list), it adopted a rugged but fashionable look more akin to Land Rover, but at a much better price point (and with its own panache).
Although they are aimed at a different market, Jeep is finding that the boxy Patriot is being received far better than the more rounded Compass (even though they use the exact same architecture). The Hummer H3 is another example.
There definitely is a market for "boxy," if your box's styling really stands out, rather than recedes. Plus, the packaging advantages cannot be ignored. The Veracruz and CX-9 "sportiness" is due at least in part on rounded rear styling. That cuts interior volume--or requires greater length than a boxy style would.
Ford may or may not succeed with the Fairlane, but I give them credit for going a different direction. They've always done better by leading than by following.
The Taurus is just the renamed Freestyle and all GM & Ford minivans were pretty bad, which is why both companies abandoned them. I don't think they're trying to compete with the Odyssey or Sienna. They're just hoping that Americans now distain for the minivan image will attract buyer to their CUVs. So you have to throw the practical advantages of minivans out the window, since the CUVs "advantages" are pure image. Think of CUVs as just the mid-sized station wagons of old. The old Taurus wagon never was competition to the Crown Vic wagon.
I think the CUV can replace the minivan-eventually. NOt that the lambdas are perfect, but look at the interior and cargo numbers. If GM can gradually improve head and legroom numbers somehow, then they will have a minivan competitor. ANd the Freestyle already has the flipand fold third row. They just need to improve upon it. The next thing for CUVs is going after REAL SUVs. I just read that the Durango and Explorer will be replaced by unibody trucks, yet still retain towing capacities and other truck like features in a smaller lighter, yet more spacious, and gas saving package. I think that is like the Toureg-which is unibody, but can tow like a truck. I wonder if the Flex really is the Explorer replacement. I'm still not sold on that stying as I thought we'd progressed away from Boxes.
Sat in both. Both seem very comfortable in 1st & 2nd row. Veracruz 3rd row is roomy enough; Acadia 3rd row roomier and head room seems better. I didn't feel like I was sitting too low in either.
No contest behind 3rd row - Veracruz barely has enough depth to put in a paper bag of groceries and could be a tight squeeze for any one with a golf bag. So I bet most people getting the Veracruz will be folding down the 3rd row often. Acadia - plenty of room.
Didn't drive either yet-dealer had difficulty starting up the Veracruz in the showroom with their jumper box-maybe it was dead. They even tried jumper cables. They tried different things for 15 minutes plus. Acadia remote works from very, very far away. Motor idles as if it's not even running.
I was actually more impressed with the SLT Acadia than the loaded Veracruz regarding interior looks and storage, 3rd row room and cargo area behind 3rd row and possibly outside appearance. And if the Enclave is supposedly a step up with the material quality, it will be my first choice so far. I like the outside looks of the Acadia but like the Enclave styling better based on pics. Believe it or not, I'm still waiting to see the new 2008 Chrysler Town and Country in person. Pictures are deceiving. And I like plenty of features, gadgets, storage area, etc. If you're spending this kind of $ for any of these vehicles, I want the most for my $.
The overall storage areas in Acadia is much greater & useful than the Veracruz. Other than a decent size glove box, the other compartments are too small in the Veracruz.
The one thing I thought was odd in the Acadia (maybe it's something they'll change for the 2008 model) with both sunshades, is it's more of a thin fabric than a solid shade. So it seems like the sun will still come in. Will your head get fried on a hot, sunny day? Any owners have some feedback on this?
Getting into the third row is much easier in the Acadia. The 2nd row slides and folds up giving you room to get in easier than in the Veracruz where the seat seems to only slide forward. So there is more maneuvering needed to get back there. Also, with the 2nd row bucket seats in the Acadia, you can step through the middle to get to the 3rd row. It's really night and day.
Dealer didn't know much about dealer installed NAV for Veracruz. No in dash NAV is a deal breaker for me. But even if the NAV was available in the Veracruz, don't think I want the Veracruz. When I saw and got into the Acadia, I thought to myself, this is really nice, I can live with this. Didn't have that thought with the Veracruz. Excellent job GM. I've never owned a GM. Now it's a possibility.
I have the Acadia with the sunroof package (and dark leather). I agree the shades are an odd choice, but they seem to filter the sun very well. I can't do a side-by-side comparision w/ and without, but when sitting in it I don't feel the sun - there's minimal passthrough.
That said, unless you really want a sunroof, I'd say skip it - its an expensive option. The wind noise is pretty loud at speed with it open (much more than my Pontiac). We only got it as the vehicle was otherwise perfect in terms of what we were looking for w/ option and colors (nothing even close in local dealer stock) and we needed to purchase right away to qualify for some promotions that had been offered before they expired.
Thegraduate - I agree not to hijack the thread, so last thing I'll mention on the Accord, but the EX-L sedan on Honda's website starts at $27,400. Price as I wanted (with alloys, spoiler, DVD and some other amenities) worked out to just over $32.3K (sorry I indicated 33K before - that included the "dealer fee" my local dealer would charge). I'm sure they can be had for less, but thats essentially what my Acadia SLT 2 cost with some nice options (trailor package, HUD, sunroof, and upgraded paint) with the incentives I had available. The Accord is a nice ride, but at that price the Acadia is much more vehicle.
Just as with the Acadia, deals are cut on Accords (with accessories) too. I'm on many of the Accord forums, so stop in sometime and say hi. I track all the discussions, so I'll see ya!
But if style is the main concern, then the Veracruz beats the Freestyle. That's where the winning ENDS.THe VeraCruz hasn't shown itself as practical to me yet. Sure the CX9 and FS are 10 inches longer(200), and the Acadia 10 1/2 but I'll give length for comfort.
Looked at the Veracruz today. Plenty roomy enough, and unlike the FS (and the Veracruz' own stablemate Santa Fe), has a kind of chunky "butch" presence. The GM three, the Veracruz and CX-9 all look more modern than the FS. Interior materials are also superior to the FS, whose overall refinement is lacking. (That useful well at the back of the FS is underfloor storage in some of the others...different ways to cut it.)
The FS remains a good buy regardless, and who cares about resale if you plan to keep it for years? Those who are comfortable in a minivan will be equally at home in the FS. Car as appliance. As it should be, if all car buying were rational.
Still, ever since the car was invented, a good portion of buyers have also gone for pizzazz. That's why the annual model change was always such a big deal. In fact, may people paid extra for flashy horses before they bought flashy cars. Theyt still do that too.
The FS remains a good buy regardless, and who cares about resale if you plan to keep it for years? Those who are comfortable in a minivan will be equally at home in the FS. Car as appliance. As it should be, if all car buying were rational. YOu have a point with keeping the car a while. I would keep a car in this category for 5-7 years (I like to take great care of my cars). But it's important to make a GOOD investment. I not going to buy a 50 grand Escalade and put 5 grand rims on it and TV's in the headrest. While I like when rappers trick out their cars for some reason, this kills value. I'd rather have a car that's worth 15 grand in 5 years than a car that's only worth 5 grand in 5 years (FS). And if I absolutely hate the car, i want to sell it and get some money for it. All cars are a good buy depending on how the buyer uses it.
I've heard a lot about how CX9 and Acadia are expensive compared to FS. Comparatively priced, the Acadia SLT-1 is pretty much loaded for 33 g. And the CX9 comes loaded for about the same. Not counting rebates, i think the FS is about the same, maybe 1000-1500 less.
go shop one and you'll find when its time to put pen to a sales contract they will be $3-4k less as a minimum making them a great bargain, when we bought in '05 we paid $4k less then sticker. the same still applies if not even better deals...loaded '05 limited fwd for $27.5, no nav(didn't offer in '05) and no video other than that it has everything.
I test drove both the Acadia and VC. I know this is very picky but the dashboard look and feel is important to me. I guess I'm getting old but I don't like the RED dash lights on the Acadia....TOO MUCH RED! RED everywhere. When I take long trips at night, the cool refreshing blue interior lights from the Veracruz is so much easier on the eyes. But the Acadia does offer more room. It is much easier to get in the third row but you will pay at least 5K more for the Acadia than the VC, so you get more. It is a bigger vehicle. but, if you need to save some $$$ than the VC is a better buy.
I am 6'0" and in the third row of the VC, I have plenty of head clearance. Most people sitting back there won't be taller than me anyway. With a 3.8L engine and good gas mileage, it's a no-brainer. I need to spend less than 28K for a vehicle.
If I had 33K and Red dashboards lights didn't bother me, I would purchase the Acadia, but I don't have 33K and I hate the red lights all the time. (oh by the way, is there a way to change the lights to another color?)
I don't know guys but the Acadia seems to be toooo big sometimes. I put it in the same category as the Expeditions and the Armadas. After a certain size, it just doesn't seem practical. Especially when parking, or backing up. I don't want to feel like I'm driving a bus.
The VC is easier to maneuver, smaller but not too small to be useful, better gas mileage, still has 3 roomy rows, all for under 28K for GLS.
Probably the only way to fix the sunshades in the Acadia and Outlook is to get rid of the double roofs. The way they are currently configured, there is nowhere for a solid panel to slide.
That sunroof situation was one of the bigger letdowns on the Acadia...the front screen in particular looked extremely fragile. I've never understood the purpose of a fixed glass roof so I wish they'd just put in a nice sized conventional sunroof.
Actually, red/amber lighting is best for nighttime driving. That end of the spectrum has the smallest effect on pupil dilation, allowing you to have better night vision. My understanding is that that's why the Europeans have been doing it for years.
My VW has the "cool, refreshing" blue lighting you speak of, and when it's dim, I can't read it - when I turn it up, it's a big blue blob in my peripheral vision.
Still, to each his own. I'm all for people being able to change the color of the dash lighting, but maybe dozens of colors as in the Mustang is overkill...
You're dead-on concerning the red/amber lighting. Blue - the "in color" right now - is actually the worst if you actually want to read your gauges. In my MDX, trying to read the HVAC control panel in that nice, cool blue at night is nearly impossible without giving your eyes a moment to adjust. But as carlitos said, to each his own.
The VC is easier to maneuver, smaller but not too small to be useful, better gas mileage, still has 3 roomy rows, all for under 28K for GLS. The Acadia is actually very easy to manuver, has more space in row #, and actually better gas mileage. And about size, It's about the same size as a few of the other CUv's discussed on this forum. And it doesn't look that big in real life. Sitting next to an MDX, they look similar in size. Price for the Outlook starts under 28g if you wanted a lambda.
does anyone know if head rests are available for the middle seats in 2nd and 3rd row in Acadia and Outlook (i.e. for all seats)? I cannot see them listed anywhere. Our Freestyle has head rests on all 7 seats which is a must for me.
Interesting. I will keep that in mind. Check this out....Maybe that's why they took out half of the blue lighting. Remember, the Santa Fe was blue also, everything was blue, the dials, the numbers on the gauges, everything. When you compare this to the Veracruz, the lines on the speedometer are NOT blue but white but it has a blue circle around the gauge, I guess like a background. But the numbers themselves and the lines are not blue. I guess that's why they did it. To make it easier on the eyes. Maybe they had some complaints.
The only problem with red lighting is for those of use with red/green color "blindness" problems. The red lighting on the black dash is very difficult to read. However, I liked the Acadia enough otherwise to go ahead and get one.
After a test drive The new multi-speed autobox has an overly eager tendency to downshift with the slightest toe-touch of pressure on the gas pedal. The engine has all sorts of mid-range torque and could handle quite steep hills without requiring a down-shift, the constant down and back up ratio swapping not only is midly irritating, but also uses more gas than necessary. The weight of the CX9 starts to show is in the dynamics. The vehicle doesn't have that light, nimble zoom zoom quality that really distinguishes most Mazdas. The big wheels, 20 inches, demand stiff springs to keep their weight under control on the bumps, leading to a less than supple, somewhat choppy ride. The steering isn't bad, however, and while the CX9 won't make you want to toss your Miata, it never feels overly ponderous on on ramps. I tested a few weeks ago a Acadia it did a better job on the ride and handling balance, even though it is no lighter no smaller than the Mazda. Mazda CX9 is off my list....along with the Toyota Highlander with all it's tranny shifting problems and hestitation which seems to share the same problems with the Camary-Avalon.
This is how it goes with cars - the part you like the least is one of the qualities I like the most and a distinguishing factor between the CX-9 and the Acadia. The two sunroofs gave Acadia, Edge, MKX, and Outlook a decided advantage over all other similarly equipped CUVs. I like as much sun and light as I can get without having to put up with "convertible noise." I currently own a convertible and am selling it because of the noise. Yes, I know there is more noise with the sunroofs than without, but that's one of the trade-offs I accept.
I've gotten the impression from other forums that most really like the sunroof design. Rather than mess with this sunroof design, I'd respectfully suggest buying one without a sunroof or buying another vehicle that comes with only one....or wait until they find a better way to address the quality of the screen.
BTW, I played around with the front screen in a couple of different Acadias and had no problem operating it.
Whatever floats yer boat...I think the frequent, but very smooth shifts are fine. If it used more gas, then it is unlikely that Mazda would tune it that way. I suspect that the shift points and torque curve are synchronized pretty well. As for the big wheels, good point. 20" and larger wheels don't make a sense, except for looks.
The screens operate fine...I just don't think they will hold up...particularly the front one. Time will tell, but as an engineer I'm used to looking at the design, maintainability and controls of equipment and machinery and that certainly looks like it won't hold up. Same for the handle that move the second row forward for 3rd row entry...I have my doubts as to it's durability as well. Of course, failure of either would result to nothing more than an annoying part replacement at worst, rather than a major problem.
My opinions on the design of these two components is certainly not the deal-breaker on the Acadia. It's just two of a handful things that tend to send me in a different direction. Overall, it's an attractive and well packaged vehicle.
More gears, more shifting...doesn't matter if it's a Mazda, a GM, a Ford or a Lexus (7-speeds!). As for any 6-Speed getting worse gas mileage than a 5-Speed or 4-Speed, all other things being equal? I kinda doubt it.
Perhaps you'd rather have a Power-Glide (2-speed transmission). It doesn't shift often at all.
I guess we'll see on the durability. I'll tell you however that this may be an improvement over prior designs - the sunroof shade (one of those two-stage cardboard things) on my Pontiac turned into a huge rattle maker that I could never silence completely. Hopefully this design will be quieter and durable.
I wonder what is Ford's reasoning on canning the CVT...just not popular or not capable of handing the torque from the 3.5L without a major re-work? Probably both.
It seems cost was the primary reason as the metal mesh belt is from ZF in germany and costly, it's really to bad as it is a perfect solution for the cuv segment. It would have needed a rework I suspect as well to handle the higher torque but it shouldn't have been to big an issue as nissan puts more hp through the murano into a cvt so there is a soultion to it.
I saw a Veracruz today and could not believe they will pull many buyers from Acadia/Outlook and CX-9. I am not a big Hyundia fan although I did own a new 94 Excel when I was just out of college and it ran great. The issue is near the same price level as the above and that (despite the fact of good ratings)they depreciate like a lead balloon. The one I seen was a GLS that was just over $29k. Plus the back row appeared to be almost resting on the back window. It seems there is zero room behind the 3rd row.
Not everyone wants to drive a behemoth. I think that's why it will sell well... on top of the fact that it's a great vehicle. Look at how many smaller vehicles have a 3rd row now (Rav4, Santa Fe, Outlander, Kia Rondo, Mazda5), all of which have less storage behind the 3rd row than the Veracruz.
Speaking of depreciation like a lead balloon, have you seen what you can get a 2-year old Freestyle for?!!
Does anyone know where I would find the safety ratings for the CX9? I really prefer the Mazda in appearance, features and lease price, but cannot argue with the Acadia's #1 safety rating. Does anyone know where I find info on he safety comparison? Thanks!
As already stated, the CX-9 hasn't been tested yet, but it'll be pretty shocking if it doesn't get a 5-star rating...everything based off the Mazda6 platform is performing very well (Mazda6 and CX-7 are both 5-star vehicles).
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has picked the Edge and the Lincoln MKX both as "Top safety picks" and they have very similar architecture to the CX-9 other than being shorter than the CX-9.
The CX-9 will crash test fine.
BTW - if it hasn't been mentioned, the VC got a 5-star rating too. All of these CUV's seem to be proving very safe.
Hi, Been a lurker on the forums for months, got a question and signed on! How do you ladies and gents feel about the HID on GT/MDX and absence on Non-GT/VC? Does the light make any difference (visibility/appearance)? My shopping shortlist came down to H-VC, CX9-GT and A-MDX, still trying to decide. Regards, - ms.
On local roads, I wasn't able to see anything if a HID is behind me. The shadow of my own car is projected right in front of me.
With HID, - it won't be back to daylight, just bright enough to see the area. - Another plus, I can see some the sides a bit better. - HID cosumes 35% less power, should last a lot, lot longer. Can compensate the $.
Minuses, - before I got used to it, the sharp cut-off seems make the dark darker, a bit uncomfortable in area no street lights. - when go back to w/o HID, it's like using dying batteries in my flashlight.
Under rain/fog, not much diff. BTW, fog lights seems not so useful either.
If you're 35 or plus, HID should be a must.
Unless HID is the only one missing from perfect, it's a must have for me. Unfortunately, VC doesn't have it.
Since the Concept Genesis RWD Sedan is getting HID's, I'd assume the Veracruz won't be too far behind. I'm surprised they didn't make them available to the US since you can get them in Korea.
I've seen this statement a couple of times and you certainly know what will fit in your garage, but it really doesn't appear the the rear doors are appreciably longer than the front doors...an inch or so maybe?. If I get bored this weekend (and it'll have to be REALLY bored) I'll run down to the Mazda dealership with a tape measure. Also, the CX-9 is a fairly narrow vehicle...2" more narrow than the GM Lamdas and the Acura MDX...for example. That probably negates 1 to 1.5 inches of the door length (for that comparison).
In short, it's interesting how big an issue this appears to be to some potential buyers.
Comments
The Acadia does look more like a typical SUV, i.e. boxy, which looks a little more rugged than the curved lines of the CX-9, Veracruz, and even the Enclave--I think that will also appeal to people who might have been considering a traditional SUV.
I'd think the company website would be the most accurate. But if style is the main concern, then the Veracruz beats the Freestyle.
As for the styling of the Fairlane, a more innovative boxy look may be just what the doctor ordered. Ford already has the Edge, and now the Taurus X. One is rounded and the other has that wagon look some may go for.
The Fairlane, when first presented, didn't look like the other crossovers out there. Its boxiness wasn't boring. It also had clear advantages re: exterior size-interior room like the old minivans. And rather than being a styling bore like the Toyota Highlander or Honda Pilot (both more boxy than the others in this list), it adopted a rugged but fashionable look more akin to Land Rover, but at a much better price point (and with its own panache).
Although they are aimed at a different market, Jeep is finding that the boxy Patriot is being received far better than the more rounded Compass (even though they use the exact same architecture). The Hummer H3 is another example.
There definitely is a market for "boxy," if your box's styling really stands out, rather than recedes. Plus, the packaging advantages cannot be ignored. The Veracruz and CX-9 "sportiness" is due at least in part on rounded rear styling. That cuts interior volume--or requires greater length than a boxy style would.
Ford may or may not succeed with the Fairlane, but I give them credit for going a different direction. They've always done better by leading than by following.
No contest behind 3rd row - Veracruz barely has enough depth to put in a paper bag of groceries and could be a tight squeeze for any one with a golf bag. So I bet most people getting the Veracruz will be folding down the 3rd row often. Acadia - plenty of room.
Didn't drive either yet-dealer had difficulty starting up the Veracruz in the showroom with their jumper box-maybe it was dead. They even tried jumper cables. They tried different things for 15 minutes plus. Acadia remote works from very, very far away. Motor idles as if it's not even running.
I was actually more impressed with the SLT Acadia than the loaded Veracruz regarding interior looks and storage, 3rd row room and cargo area behind 3rd row and possibly outside appearance. And if the Enclave is supposedly a step up with the material quality, it will be my first choice so far. I like the outside looks of the Acadia but like the Enclave styling better based on pics. Believe it or not, I'm still waiting to see the new 2008 Chrysler Town and Country in person. Pictures are deceiving. And I like plenty of features, gadgets, storage area, etc. If you're spending this kind of $ for any of these vehicles, I want the most for my $.
The overall storage areas in Acadia is much greater & useful than the Veracruz. Other than a decent size glove box, the other compartments are too small in the Veracruz.
The one thing I thought was odd in the Acadia (maybe it's something they'll change for the 2008 model) with both sunshades, is it's more of a thin fabric than a solid shade. So it seems like the sun will still come in. Will your head get fried on a hot, sunny day? Any owners have some feedback on this?
Getting into the third row is much easier in the Acadia. The 2nd row slides and folds up giving you room to get in easier than in the Veracruz where the seat seems to only slide forward. So there is more maneuvering needed to get back there. Also, with the 2nd row bucket seats in the Acadia, you can step through the middle to get to the 3rd row. It's really night and day.
Dealer didn't know much about dealer installed NAV for Veracruz. No in dash NAV is a deal breaker for me. But even if the NAV was available in the Veracruz, don't think I want the Veracruz. When I saw and got into the Acadia, I thought to myself, this is really nice, I can live with this. Didn't have that thought with the Veracruz. Excellent job GM. I've never owned a GM. Now it's a possibility.
Hope some of this is helpful.
That said, unless you really want a sunroof, I'd say skip it - its an expensive option. The wind noise is pretty loud at speed with it open (much more than my Pontiac). We only got it as the vehicle was otherwise perfect in terms of what we were looking for w/ option and colors (nothing even close in local dealer stock) and we needed to purchase right away to qualify for some promotions that had been offered before they expired.
Thegraduate - I agree not to hijack the thread, so last thing I'll mention on the Accord, but the EX-L sedan on Honda's website starts at $27,400. Price as I wanted (with alloys, spoiler, DVD and some other amenities) worked out to just over $32.3K (sorry I indicated 33K before - that included the "dealer fee" my local dealer would charge). I'm sure they can be had for less, but thats essentially what my Acadia SLT 2 cost with some nice options (trailor package, HUD, sunroof, and upgraded paint) with the incentives I had available. The Accord is a nice ride, but at that price the Acadia is much more vehicle.
Only until you are ready to sell it :shades:
We want to talk about crossovers.
That's where the winning ENDS.THe VeraCruz hasn't shown itself as practical to me yet. Sure the CX9 and FS are 10 inches longer(200), and the Acadia 10 1/2 but I'll give length for comfort.
The FS remains a good buy regardless, and who cares about resale if you plan to keep it for years? Those who are comfortable in a minivan will be equally at home in the FS. Car as appliance. As it should be, if all car buying were rational.
Still, ever since the car was invented, a good portion of buyers have also gone for pizzazz. That's why the annual model change was always such a big deal. In fact, may people paid extra for flashy horses before they bought flashy cars. Theyt still do that too.
YOu have a point with keeping the car a while. I would keep a car in this category for 5-7 years (I like to take great care of my cars). But it's important to make a GOOD investment. I not going to buy a 50 grand Escalade and put 5 grand rims on it and TV's in the headrest. While I like when rappers trick out their cars for some reason, this kills value. I'd rather have a car that's worth 15 grand in 5 years than a car that's only worth 5 grand in 5 years (FS). And if I absolutely hate the car, i want to sell it and get some money for it. All cars are a good buy depending on how the buyer uses it.
I am 6'0" and in the third row of the VC, I have plenty of head clearance. Most people sitting back there won't be taller than me anyway. With a 3.8L engine and good gas mileage, it's a no-brainer. I need to spend less than 28K for a vehicle.
If I had 33K and Red dashboards lights didn't bother me, I would purchase the Acadia, but I don't have 33K and I hate the red lights all the time. (oh by the way, is there a way to change the lights to another color?)
I don't know guys but the Acadia seems to be toooo big sometimes. I put it in the same category as the Expeditions and the Armadas. After a certain size, it just doesn't seem practical. Especially when parking, or backing up. I don't want to feel like I'm driving a bus.
The VC is easier to maneuver, smaller but not too small to be useful, better gas mileage, still has 3 roomy rows, all for under 28K for GLS.
That sunroof situation was one of the bigger letdowns on the Acadia...the front screen in particular looked extremely fragile. I've never understood the purpose of a fixed glass roof so I wish they'd just put in a nice sized conventional sunroof.
My VW has the "cool, refreshing" blue lighting you speak of, and when it's dim, I can't read it - when I turn it up, it's a big blue blob in my peripheral vision.
Still, to each his own. I'm all for people being able to change the color of the dash lighting, but maybe dozens of colors as in the Mustang is overkill...
The Acadia is actually very easy to manuver, has more space in row #, and actually better gas mileage. And about size, It's about the same size as a few of the other CUv's discussed on this forum. And it doesn't look that big in real life. Sitting next to an MDX, they look similar in size. Price for the Outlook starts under 28g if you wanted a lambda.
Thanks, Carsten
Kelly
The new multi-speed autobox has an overly eager tendency to downshift with the slightest toe-touch of pressure on the gas pedal. The engine has all sorts of mid-range torque and could handle quite steep hills without requiring a down-shift, the constant down and back up ratio swapping not only is midly irritating, but also uses more gas than necessary.
The weight of the CX9 starts to show is in the dynamics. The vehicle doesn't have that light, nimble zoom zoom quality that really distinguishes most Mazdas.
The big wheels, 20 inches, demand stiff springs to keep their weight under control on the bumps, leading to a less than supple, somewhat choppy ride.
The steering isn't bad, however, and while the CX9 won't make you want to toss your Miata, it never feels overly ponderous on on ramps.
I tested a few weeks ago a Acadia it did a better job on the ride and handling balance, even though it is no lighter no smaller than the Mazda.
Mazda CX9 is off my list....along with the Toyota Highlander with all it's tranny shifting problems and hestitation which seems to share the same problems with the Camary-Avalon.
I've gotten the impression from other forums that most really like the sunroof design. Rather than mess with this sunroof design, I'd respectfully suggest buying one without a sunroof or buying another vehicle that comes with only one....or wait until they find a better way to address the quality of the screen.
BTW, I played around with the front screen in a couple of different Acadias and had no problem operating it.
My opinions on the design of these two components is certainly not the deal-breaker on the Acadia. It's just two of a handful things that tend to send me in a different direction. Overall, it's an attractive and well packaged vehicle.
Perhaps you'd rather have a Power-Glide (2-speed transmission). It doesn't shift often at all.
Or the 2007 Freestyle, with the no-shift CVT. Taurus x gets the 6 speed.
Let's not get crazy now. :P
I wonder what is Ford's reasoning on canning the CVT...just not popular or not capable of handing the torque from the 3.5L without a major re-work? Probably both.
Speaking of depreciation like a lead balloon, have you seen what you can get a 2-year old Freestyle for?!!
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-28-200- 7/0004554927&EDATE=
Beginning in September 2007, government star ratings will be listed on the window stickers of new vehicles.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has picked the Edge and the Lincoln MKX both as "Top safety picks" and they have very similar architecture to the CX-9 other than being shorter than the CX-9.
The CX-9 will crash test fine.
BTW - if it hasn't been mentioned, the VC got a 5-star rating too. All of these CUV's seem to be proving very safe.
Been a lurker on the forums for months, got a question and signed on! How do you ladies and gents feel about the HID on GT/MDX and absence on Non-GT/VC? Does the light make any difference (visibility/appearance)? My shopping shortlist came down to H-VC, CX9-GT and A-MDX, still trying to decide. Regards, - ms.
On local roads, I wasn't able to see anything if a HID is behind me. The shadow of my own car is projected right in front of me.
With HID,
- it won't be back to daylight, just bright enough to see the area.
- Another plus, I can see some the sides a bit better.
- HID cosumes 35% less power, should last a lot, lot longer. Can compensate the $.
Minuses,
- before I got used to it, the sharp cut-off seems make the dark darker, a bit uncomfortable in area no street lights.
- when go back to w/o HID, it's like using dying batteries in my flashlight.
Under rain/fog, not much diff. BTW, fog lights seems not so useful either.
If you're 35 or plus, HID should be a must.
Unless HID is the only one missing from perfect, it's a must have for me. Unfortunately, VC doesn't have it.
In short, it's interesting how big an issue this appears to be to some potential buyers.