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.
Options

Crossover SUV Comparison

11617192122142

Comments

  • drewbadrewba Member Posts: 154
    I guess in our case, it's a problem that the doors are long and set far back in the body. We have a post in the middle of our garage and have to pull our Highlander in pretty far to have the back door clear the post.

    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.
  • nifty56nifty56 Member Posts: 279
    The headlights on the CX9 are projectors. I have them on my Mazda3 and hate them. The problem is the sharp drop off. On a very dark counrty road that is very uneven the sharp line between the lighted and dark area can be very annoying, by this i mean as the car bounces up and down so does the sharp line. Up and down down and up will send you into a trance. Hold up to your face a piece of paper, half black and half white and move it up and down continuously and tell me if it doesn't bother you. Also on hilly roads the lights will disapear, the lights have no flare. Also they do not illuminate signs very well in some cases not at all. Maybe mine are bad because the M3 is low to the ground. Pointing them up a bit might help me. With the CX9 because it is higher off the ground they might do better in lighting the raod. I feel very unsafe driving on very dark back roads. Improving to different bulbs or system I have heard from others who have my same concerns will not help.
    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: :(
  • nxs138nxs138 Member Posts: 481
    Get them checked out for proper alignment; the ones on my Audi were like that (HID lights), and they did have a sharp cutoff. I thought the cutoff was too low to the ground, and indeed they were not properly aligned. It made a world of difference once they got adjusted.
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Member Posts: 458
    Yeah. It might just be you. ;)

    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.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    I wonder where I could find some sales numbers for Acadia/CX9. Recently went on a trip and sa them everywhere-except for dealers! Saw some CX9s too.
  • cason1cason1 Member Posts: 65
    That makes sense. I'm close to having a problem with the Acadia or the CX-9 (should I choose either one due to length. My garages are very wide, but not all that deep.
  • parker4551parker4551 Member Posts: 58
    Concerning the Freestyle and the CX-9, does anyone think these things look to much like a station wagon? I like the size and power of the CX-9, but my fragile ego couldn't take station wagon jokes, and for that kind of money I don't want to hear them.
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    I don't think the CX-9 is too wagon like. I think the couple of inches it has over the Freestyle in ground clearance help it look a little less wagon like.
  • freealfasfreealfas Member Posts: 652
    short of this cyberspace forum who's going to berade you and make a joke about it looking like a wagon... if that's your biggest concern with a potential purchase you might want to review your priorities.
  • The Mazda6 wagon looks like a wagon...albeit a very sporty one. The CX-9 is a great looking CUV. It no more looks like a "wagon" than any of the GMs or the Veracruz.
  • hardhawkhardhawk Member Posts: 702
    The Outlook and Acadia look like minivans with a hood. So, it is pick your poison here. Van vs. Wagon. ;)
  • The discontinuing GM minivans look like minivans with a hood, because that is what they are. In an attempt to make them less "minivan-like" they were given higher, longer hoods. Sort of defeats the purpose of the breadbox design. Sales were (predictably) awful. The Acadia, etc., may have a slight minivan tinge, due to the long wheelbase--which like a minivan allows them to have passenger doors without big wheel cutouts in them.
  • hvcownerhvcowner Member Posts: 36
    I'm laughing because I wanted a crossover with a third row seat and all wheel drive. I think I drove 'em all. And my top three choices ended up being:

    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.
  • hvcownerhvcowner Member Posts: 36
    Ooh, I loved the look of the Acadia (currently drive a very early model Durango). I think it looks very SUV like . . .it's so interesting how people's perceptions differ as to a vehicle's appearance.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I like the box theory - all vehicles are boxes.

    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:
  • selooseloo Member Posts: 606
    How much did you pay below invoice price?

    Thanks
  • practicalpractical Member Posts: 53
    They haven't posted the Feb # yet, here it is
    http://media.ford.com/mazda/news/section_news.cfm?section=80
  • hvcownerhvcowner Member Posts: 36
    MSRP is $30,645 for the GLS AWD with the premium package.

    Dealer Invoice is $29,039.

    I paid $29,400.
  • hvcownerhvcowner Member Posts: 36
    Steve,

    I think you've got a point with your box theory :). What's a convertible cause that's what I really want. In the meantime, so long as there are children - - I guess I'm stuck with the 2 box syndrome.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    CUV's look like station wagons? That's crazy! :P
    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).
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 20,704
    CUV's try to look like SUV's. they just don't want to be termed wagons.
    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.
    2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    I'd rather have the look of a wagon versus the climb in height of something with more ground clearance purely for look. To me buying one of these CUVs for looks is like a woman buying a pair of uncomfortable shoes just because they look good. I'll take the lower height of the Freestyle anyday. Plus it makes it easier putting things on the roof rack that's 68" high versus 72"+ for some of these others.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 20,704
    when i was young it was like this: 2 doors, good. 4 doors, bad. 4 door wagon, really bad.
    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:
    2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • tom_holsingertom_holsinger Member Posts: 58
    If you dig through the mpg thread, you'll see a complete report from me last year on a 200+ mile freeway trip from California's San Joaquin Valley to the San Jose airport and back, to pick up my mother-in-law. I drove out and my wife drove us back.

    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.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I like one box and two box rigs but I'd really like a smashed box (aka a Miata). ;)
  • tom_holsingertom_holsinger Member Posts: 58
    Boy, do I know how you feel. We had a big Caravan, with second row captain's chairs, until a year after our twin sons left for college. And our 6'+ sons loved the captain's chairs. Our younger daughter complained about having to sit in the back even though we told her she'd have to grow another six inches to qualify for the captain's chairs.

    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.
  • parker4551parker4551 Member Posts: 58
    Well for $40,000 I consider everything. I am even questioning why I would pay more for an Arcadia, Outlook, or CX-9 than I would a nicely equipped Tahoe. Lots of incentives on a Tahoe now.
  • hardhawkhardhawk Member Posts: 702
    Because the Acadia has a lot more room inside than the Tahoe and gets far better gas mileage. The Tahoe 3rd row seat is worthless for anything other than small kids and the Acadia 3rd row is confortable for adults. Acadia mileage is significantly higher too. The only advantage of the Tahoe is its body on frame design IF you need to tow heavy trailers. If you need to tow and to actually use the 3rd row, the Expedition is a far better choice than a Tahoe.
  • parker4551parker4551 Member Posts: 58
    The Acadia is smaller on the inside according to the specs posted here at Edmunds. You are right about the mileage though, I guess it would depend upon how much less you could get the Tahoe for. $2000 less buys a lot of gas.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    I'd rather have the look of a wagon versus the climb in height of something with more ground clearance purely for look.
    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.
  • The Tahoe does have more interior volume than the Acadia, but you have to consider how useful it is. The Acadia's third row is significantly more roomy and comfortable than the Tahoe's. The Tahoe excels in other dimensions that may or may not be that useful to you...like interior width. Both vehicles can seat the same number of people, so unless you are hauling wide cargo from time to time, the more comfortable seating arrangements in the Acadia likely negate any advantage the bit of extra air space the Tahod provides beyond your outside shoulders and elbows.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    The Acadia is smaller on the inside according to the specs posted here at Edmunds.
    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!
  • True. The Pacifica may be more pleasingly styled than the FS, but standing on the outside, it seems to be such a tall and bulky thing for a vehicle where you don't get the space and stretchout room of some of the others here.
  • parker4551parker4551 Member Posts: 58
    I got that information on Edmunds new vehicle comparison. Every dimension was bigger, from hip room to leg room, to head room. I was surprised myself, but there it is. Although they do not have the measurements for the third row, but that is a kid only row in my opinion. And you are kidding yourself if you think there is more cargo space in an Acadia than an Expedition. Expedition is larger than a Tahoe.
    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.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    If you aren't towing, then a Tahoe is just a lot of extra vehicle (body-on-frame which limits interior room vs exterior size, guzzling V8 which is similar in speed to the Acadia V6).

    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.
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Member Posts: 458
    Read it and weep. All these numbers are from the respective manufacturer's websites, NOT a third party:

    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.
  • parker4551parker4551 Member Posts: 58
    I will have to concede those numbers right now, and find the numbers later on their respective sites. At this time I don't see where the expedition even has that posted on their website. However, I might think that GMC has fluffed those numbers. I will take a tape measure with me to the GMC dealer and compare the Yukon and the Acadia for cargo space.
    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.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    A body-on-frame vehicle (Tahoe, Expedition, Durango, Explorer) is much less efficient in packaging than a unibody vehicle, because it is limited to providing passenger space ABOVE the frame, where a unibody vehicle has the frame built-in to the body (any of these crossovers or any traditional passenger car).
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Member Posts: 458
    Well, you can concede the numbers again after you've gone to the trouble to dig down as far as I did to find them.

    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.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    You can't be serious about your "efficient engineering can compensate for size" quote.
    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.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    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.
    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!
  • parker4551parker4551 Member Posts: 58
    I will concede the cargo space, I checked out the GMC site and compared the Acadia to the Yukon, the Acadia has more cargo space. However, on overall passenger space there is less space, except for third row leg space, the Acadia has more third row leg space than the Yukon.
    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.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    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.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    This is one CUV I haven't head in this thread. Sure it's not that attractive, but I heard it's got decent space.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    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.

    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.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    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.
  • joe97joe97 Member Posts: 2,248
    Subaru Tribeca is getting another facelift next week, second in as many years.
  • joe97joe97 Member Posts: 2,248
    After driving just about every CUV/SUV discussed so far in this forum, I came away with the conclusion the Veracruz is the overall winner. The combination of driving experience, cabin noise, layout, ride, handling, power, size provides ease and comfort for those behind the wheel and passengers across the three rows.

    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) ;)
  • rossdmrossdm Member Posts: 56
    Does the passenger seat in the Pilot EX-L have power adjustments or is it still manual? I was under the impression that Honda added power controls to this seat but I don't see it listed anywhere in the specs as power-adjustable.

    Thanks,
    Dave
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    I came away with the conclusion the Veracruz is the overall winner.

    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."
Sign In or Register to comment.