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
The CX-9 is 14-15" longer from the front bumper to the back of the rear door, not to mention 4" wider. Given that, I just don't see that we'd ever be able to get that back door opened on the CX-9.
My advise is do a test drive in the dark on a very dark bumpy road and decide. For me I will try and stay away from any vehicle with this projector headlight system. Unfortunately many manufactures are using this system all in the name of style, appearance and don't they look cool. Some say they will get use to them but after 2 years I haven't, but maybe its just me. :mad:
My CX-7's HIDs are my first and I love them to the point that I will pretty much make them a necessity on any future vehicle purchases. The cutoff does take some getting used to, but it's also a sign that the illumination at the edge of the lit area is pretty much just as strong as it is in the center; something you cannot say for non-projector bulbs. I've had no problems with range, and find that reflective highway signs are lit up a LOT better than with normal halogens.
Most people find the HID illumination is better - the color rendition of the light is certainly improved - and I don't think style is the main cause for these things expanding through the market.
FWIW, the CX-7 has manually-leveled HID units (thought at least the MS3 did as well, according to the articles I've read) and I've found that setting "0" (the highest) is borderline blinding to oncoming traffic with just me in the car. Load the car up more, and you have to go to setting 1 or 2.
To each his own, but I'd take HIDs over the alternative any day.
1. Veracruz (bought it!)
2. CX-9
3. Acadia
So, you may be surprised. Hyundai definitely deals, AND the warranty is pretty exceptional. I felt that the overall value when looking at the features, the negotiated price, and the warranty really all added up to terrific value. Plus (and I know someone will yell at me), I really did feel that the CX-9 looked station-wagony. It sure didn't drive that way though, and I do think the CX-9 takes the prize for comfortable seats. The seats were so good that almost swayed me . . .other auto dealers should take a page from that book.
Vans are one box.
Minivans, SUVs, hatches, wagons and pickups are two boxes.
Sedans are three boxes.
Your ride may be curvy, but it's just bent sheetmetal on the box(es). :shades:
Thanks
http://media.ford.com/mazda/news/section_news.cfm?section=80
Dealer Invoice is $29,039.
I paid $29,400.
I think you've got a point with your box theory
All of these vehichles are essentially tall station wagons. True- the Freestyle does look like- and does seem to be- a station wagon to me. Be it's about utility. Now styling is important so if that isn't your thing then to each his own. Out of all I've heard on this forum, the Acadia lookin like a minivan is a first for me. What I've been hearing is "SUV trying to be CUV." I like the bold looks. NOt something trying to copy something else. Huge unseen step from those "CRossover vans" that looked like trash! The CX9 doesn't look too stationwagon to me. It's long hood contradicts that to me (Also gives me an odd stance feeling).
ford made a half hearted attempt to market the freestyle as a sort of suv, but by renaming it the taurus x, they are more honest.
now i think a 4 door wagon is a pretty good choice.
my biggest problem is, i don't want to give up anything i have now. :sick:
Conditions were ideal. We used cruise-control at 65 mph in light freeway traffic - 95% + of the miles were freeway. And fuel use was measured by fillups leaving and returning at the same gas station.
We averaged 32.165 miles per gallon for the trip in a FWD 2006 Freestyle SE.
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.
Well actually, all of these CUV's have about the same step in hieght as the FS. They are all about 8 inches of ground clearance. If you want real car step in height, get a PAcifica (5inches) But that is the corrrect case of a large vehichle with a small inside.
Where did you get this information? The Acdia is bigger in every interior dimension but width than the Tahoe. CArgo space (more than Expedition) and leg/ head space. And you can get a loaded Acadia (everything but DVD and NAVI) for 35-36, whereas on sale, a nicely eqquipped (not loaded)Tahoe LT3 for 37.5g(don't forget gas guzzler tax!). Why get that when I could pay a grand more and get a Suburban. and peoplle are willing to pay the 35g for acadia when dealers are putting HUGE incentitives on Tahoes. GM has built the demise of it's own fullsize SUV!
The reason I have to consider the Acadia, is that I already have an Armada and my wife does not want to drive a large SUV, but I could use the seats that the Acadia provides. And the mileage, around town in particular is a lot better.
I know this is a hot section of the automotive market right now, just hard to justify smaller vehicle for more money.
If you are really concerned about interior room, and you don't need 4WD it sounds like a minivan is right up your alley. If you're man enough to get past the fact that it's not a "truck." If interior room is way down your list, get an SUV; but you'll pay for the "SUV" tagline.
Cargo volume (cu.ft) behind third row:
Acadia 19.7, Expedition, 18.6, Tahoe 16.9
Cargo volume (cu.ft) behind second row:
Acadia 68.9, Expedition, 55, Tahoe 60.3
No kidding. The lesson here is that efficient engineering can compensate for "size" when it comes to interior space. Maybe also that even Edmunds can be misleading if they don't specify numbers well enough for us to make apples-to-apples comparisons.
However, I do see where all the other dimensions on the website are more, headroom, leg room, hip room. Width and height is definitely bigger. I am not sure where GMC gets that cargo space number. I know there is more space behind a Expedition second seat than a Tahoe. My father owns a Expedition, and the reason he didn't buy the Tahoe was because not as much luggage could be stored behind the second row seat. I am beginning to question the methods manufacturers use to get these numbers. Starting to sound like the EPA sticker.
You can't be serious about your "efficient engineering can compensate for size" quote. Size is size. Larger is Larger. Next thing you know this thing will be larger than a Suburban.
My understanding is that the calculation of all volume numbers are regulated by the EPA because it's part of how they classify vehicle classes. So the way they come up with the numbers is strictly prescribed and probably not able to be "fluffed." ...Although manufacturers have been known to make misprints.
But the example of your father's experience makes a good point: there is a difference between just plain "space" and "usable space." For all I know, the configuration of the Expedition's smaller cargo area makes it more usable and seem larger than it is.
You can't be serious about your "efficient engineering can compensate for size" quote.
Yep. I am. And I'm right.
Yep. I am. And I'm right.
I'll back ya on that. It's why our smaller-on-the-outside than-a-Suburban Odyssey actually had a lot more interior volume than that same Suburban.
THe bottomline is the Acadia has more space inside than all full size SUV's save Suburban and Expedition Extra Length. And you don't gain much more than 10 cu ft cargo, or an inch of third row space with these. look at how much longer the hood is on a longer-than-Acadia-Tahoe. That leaves less room for interior. You do know that All minivans have more cargo and interior space than Suburban. If you didn't, then now you do. with so few "perks" the only good reason to get a Suburban over Acadia is Towing (Acadia does tow a decent best in class 4500lbs though) and a little off roading in a Z71 (if you need to go off road, buy a Jeep!
Cargo space in minivans, and apparently this vehicle, comes from the way the seats fold down, to which note I would say the seats are not as large as the SUV's.
Now you guys got me worried that this will be to large of a vehicle for my wife.
It's not much larger (only one inch) than the Freestyle, and CX9. And gets better mileage than all but the FS. Still smaller than most minivans. I'll take a look at passenger volume numbers, but that's probably because of width of full size SUV's.
Stand beside the front door of the Freestyle & Acadia and you'll see the difference...especially since the roof goes up on the FS towards the rear. Definitely more car-like entry/exit than other CUVs.
That's probably because it is a car-with an explorer front. If height really is that much lower, then you must have to step down into FS because You don't have to step up into Acadia. Isn't that determined by groung clearance? becasue the Acadia and FS have abou the same. It really doesn't matter, though. As long as you don't have to climb up into it- which you don't in Acadia.
Hyundai's got another winner on its hand. Just like many of its other vehicle ranges, the VC can go head-to-head with just about every competition within the class. This makes me even more intrigued about the company and excited about the future products such as the RWD luxury sedan and RWD Tiburon (I have a soft spot for RWD vehicles)
Thanks,
Dave
Maybe for your personally, but since each person has different things they're looking for in a CUV, there can never be a single "best."