Crossover SUV Comparison

arumage

The Ford Flex reeks of style. That's like saying the xB has no style. The Flex sort of has a funky retro style about it. That being said, I don't think the Flex is everybody's cup of tea. The CX-7 is not a competitor for the Flex anyway. The Edge is a CX-7 competitor. The CX-9 is a competitor for the Flex. While the Flex is not as good looking as the CX-9, IMO, it has far more utility. Anybody who has "ducked" into a CX-9, opened those huge rear doors, or tried to sit in the 3rd row (especially if you are tall) could see all the utility of the Flex. The Flex looks to have legroom for days (especially if it has 5" more 2nd row legroom than the Freestyle, as it says on the website) and storage behind the 3rd row to match.

[Deleted User]

I think more eyes will be drawn to the Flex than the CX-9, regardless if the glance is admiring. It will stand out more, and that is something Ford needs. But it needs this now, not in a year and 3 months from now. What poor planning!!

mrblonde49

The Quest is hardly an apples to apples scenario here. Nissan missed the mark plain and simple from solid competition."

We could be saying the same thing in 3 years about the Flex. The competition here is more intense than the minivan segment ever was...

"If Ford can take the year to screw this thing together properly and price it correctly it has great potential as it is more handsome than the lambda triplets, less cartoonish than the mazda, potentailly a better value than all of them and I'll take Volvo safety every day of the week if it is indeed based on Volvo underpinnings. It could be a winner."

More handsome is very subjective. The Lamdas have been very well received for looks and overall package thus far. The bottom line is that many people don't like boxy. If they did, there would be more than 3-4 boxy vehicles produced, wouldn't there?

mrblonde49

Ah, but! Nissan has had solid hits with the Maxima and Altima, 350Z, Titan and Armada.....so one failure with the Quest isn't all bad. "

I don't see the relevence of the other Nissan vehicles. If anything, the success of the others should have laid the groundowrk for Quest success. The point was that the Quest was radical design for a family mover, like the Flex is, and people largely ignored it...

arumage

I think the sharing of style between Nissan and Renault is what hurt the Quest. There is alot of criticism of the new Sentra for this as well. The designs mentioned as successes were designed with the American market in mind. The Flex, while radical in design, certainly is American in design. If it has any connection to foreign design, it would be Japanese (Kei car on a much grander scale) or Land Rover, which is still popular in the States.

[Deleted User]

Exactly. The Flex has a Land Rover-ness to it that will serve it well. On the other hand, the Quest was radical like the 1996 guppy Taurus was radical. Sometimes radical is not attractive or appealing in any appreciable way. Also, think Honda Element or Scion xB v. Pontiac Aztec. while many people cannot stand the xB, some find it very appealing. But no one thought the Aztec (or Quest) was cool. When a vehicle looks pregnant or badly misshapen, buyers do not flock to it.

wlbrown9

Okay, I went to the Flex site and took a look. From the side view it looks as if they took my '00 Isuzu Trooper and stretched it out a little and left the spare off the rear door.. Also, it looks to be just a little shorter in height than the Trooper. I like my Trooper, but I just don't think Ford building the replacement is a real fit.

Sorry, but this comes in a distant last in style compared to the CX9 & Lambadas. Might be an attempt at a 'retro' style, but IMHO it just does not work.

gagrice

I agree, Ford needs the Flex now not in a year or more. Sounds like a Microsoft promotion. I do like the pictures. I have hated most of the egg shaped SUV/CUV offerings over the last 5 years. Then I lean toward the last generation Suburban and Tahoe designs. I need to go look at the Acadia. I will have bought a new SUV or CUV by the time the Flex hits the showrooms.

loach

As those who have read my posts probably know, I have been leaning toward the Acadia. I had tentatively eliminated the CX-9 from contention at the auto show based on the interior being a bit too tight for our family (and my wife's reaction to the size of the rear doors). But I liked it well enough that I thought I'd better at least drive one. So here are my brief thoughts (drove a Grand Touring because memory seats are a requirement for us):

Handling - Overall thought it handled a little better than the Acadia. I agree it drives "smaller" than it is. Body roll in corners seemed similar to Acadia.
Ride - Acadia rides better. I suspect part of this is the 20" wheels on the GT. The 18's may be better but that doesn't help me.
Visibility - This surprised me a little because I expected it to be no better than Acadia given the rear styling, but I felt it offered a better 360 degree view of the road than Acadia.
Interior space - Much tougher to get into the 3rd row of CX-9 than in the Acadia. Couldn't adjust all three rows to be comfortable for me (6'0" tall) at the same time. Could in the Acadia.

Overall, I like both vehicles, but it still looks like Acadia will win for us due primarily to our interior space needs. But if I was replacing my Pathfinder instead of my wife's minivan, the CX-9 would be a stronger contender because interior space wouldn't be as big an issue and I could blow off the memory seats and get a model with the 18" wheels.

jcorn20

I see the 2nd row legroom in the Acadia is 36.9. Is this the figure with the seats moved all the way back or is this a minimum value?

arumage

If you want 34" in the 3rd row, you only get 37" in the 2nd row.

On a side note, here are the dimesions for the Ford Flex vs. the Freestyle

Length: F 202.3 | FS 200.3
Width: F 79.9 | FS 74.9
Height: F 67.6 | FS 67.4
Wheelbase: F 117.9 | FS 112.9

jcorn20

I guess my question should have been "what is the max legroom in the 2nd row of the acadia with the 3rd row folded flat"? and the cx9? i like the convenience of the 3rd row, but i am more concerned with legroom in the 2nd row.

arumage

The max 2nd row legroom in the CX-9 is almost 40" as it is listed on their website. The CX-9 in the showroom had stickers on it that said as much. I'm not sure how they measured the Acadia though.

stevedebi

"On a side note, here are the dimesions for the Ford Flex vs. the Freestyle

Length: F 202.3 | FS 200.3
Width: F 79.9 | FS 74.9
Height: F 67.6 | FS 67.4
Wheelbase: F 117.9 | FS 112.9"

I don't see how the Flex can be on the same platform as the Freestyle, as some have stated here. The width is VERY different.

rossdm

Sorry, but that Flex is BUTT UGLY.

Way to go Ford.

[Deleted User]

But it is the same platform. Width can vary by a few inches (which it does in this case) due to styling differences.

The wheelbase has been stretched (a good thing, given the overall length of these vehicles. The Flex has a couple more inches shoulder room, but given how wide it is, it should offer more. However, its the big legroom it has that Ford will tout. The Freestyle was already tops on this. The Flex will be that much better.

[Deleted User]

It's a good sign that some hate it. Ford needs polarizing designs, not just inoffensive ones like the FS.

jg6

Sorry, but that Flex is BUTT UGLY.

Way to go Ford.

Right on!!!!

freealfas

so says the driver of the ever so beautiful pig nosed camry, the benchmark of fine design... next... thanks for the input though... at least the Flex is a design and not the compilation of all the least offensive styling cues one can generate painted various shades of non commital colors if you can call beige a color.

They made a statement regarding it's identity that won't allow it to be mistaken for others in the class... I'd say nice job and keep it up... you can't please all of the people all of the time.

berniedg

Ever wonder where stigma comes from ?
Community opinion-makers such as forums. Such people or marketers may or may not have families, houses to buy supplies for, or hobbies that require cargo capacity.
Buy what you need to live your "own" life not someone elses.

Anyone remember how they made "Vans" cool in the '70s:
They painted nude women on them, and posted stickers that read "Gas, Grass, or [non-permissible content removed], no-one rides for free.
I think I'll keep my ever useful M-van, and get out the air-brush. That'll get the tongues wagging in the neighborhood ;-)

[Deleted User]

Exactly. Trying to please too many people leads to focus groups and dumbed down designs. Thank heavens some of you hate the Flex. I think it will do just fine!

freealfas

Ponder this idea;

If they wanted to make a "bold move" they'd make a 2row/5seat version and the 3row/7seat version, ditch the FS & the Edge. It would be easy and the aesthetics would easily be tranfered between the 2. That's what they should be doing. A shorter wheelbase version would look just as cool, maximize the use of the design, maximize the efficiency of production costs allowing it to be brought in at Ford money with the pricing, cater to the needs of both markets with one rig and CUV identity truly separating them from the masses.

Ford I hope you are reading this forum thread...

I'd take mine black/black/white roof/3 row version please to carry the grandparents in limo like comfort...

oh yeah and beef up the CVT to handle the 3.5l that is inevitably the new corporate mill.

nxs138

The Flex sort of has a funky retro style about it

I think this whole retro fad has had its run. The Mustang is not selling as well as Ford would like these days, and everything else "retro" just doesn't seem to age well. That's the risk of going retro.

But the Flex is not as retro as say, the Mustang, so it might be an easier pill to swallow. I still see a lot of Freestyle cues in the body, so it won't turn its core base away.

[Deleted User]

Nothing retro about the Flex. Looks like nothing old. Neither does the Element or xB or Land Rover.

And retro done right sells very well. The Mustang is in its third year. To sell so many units per month of a 2 door coupe as it still does (they generally stale faster than anything...like 18 months) is great. But Ford needs to get past the idea it can stretch a design (with minor "freshenings") for eight years.

The Chevy HHR and Chrysler PT Cruiser and VW Beetle are all retro. All of them did well in their first years. But manufacturers need to understand that everything grows stale, retro or not, after 3 or 4 years, and sometimes simple tweaks are not enough to restore the shine.

Look at Scion. They are completely redoing the xB, even though it was still selling well. Toyota knows how to sell cars.

explorerx4

there is retro and there is timeless. mustang looked great 40 years ago, and still works as the '05 and up re-do. kind of like the porsche 911.
i don't think any cuv/suv will be able to match that.

baggs32

The Mustang is not selling as well as Ford would like these days

This is completely off topic but I have to chime in on this one.

Actually it is selling just as they had expected right now. The past two years it was selling at a pace well over expectations. Now that it's spring Mustangs will be flying off the lots at a higher rate which is the way it should be. In '04 and '05 you couldn't find a GT on a lot for miles even in the winter. That is not typical of a rear drive sports car.

That being said, I want a Flex when our Explorer lease is up but my wife doesn't like it. It is not for everyone as stated previously but I think it will do quite well because it's different and a lot of people go for that.

texases

I don't have the numbers, but I tried out the Acadia. I'm 6'5", so I tried out the second row seat with the driver's seat adjusted to fit me. With the second row seat back (3rd row down), I had plenty of head and leg room, more than in my Suburban, or any other vehicle I've been in.

nxs138

If you consider sales being almost 20% off from the same time last year as "expected", then I guess we have different views. Even Ford's leading sales analyst is worried. But spring and summer are coming, which will help.

That's what happens when there's so much more choice out there and hype wears off. I'm sure the same will happen with these crossovers, but there's already so much choice coming out that I can't help think it's a good thing: it'll pressure prices down!

[Deleted User]

It's either expected, or the Ford people have their heads in the toilet. It's a 2 door coupe, one of the least popular body styles these days, that in spite of that has been selling like hotcakes for over two years. You'd have to think that a few of the people that wanted a new Mustang may now already have one. To stoke sales, Ford will have to change it again. But right now, that is not their priority...especially when this sporty 2 door coupe can still outsell most of their sedans and some of their CUVs and SUVs as well.

You are right about the crossover thing. Prices will get better as more and more are added. And wait long enough...someday they will be about as cool as a minivan.

rossdm

After looking at and driving the CX-9, Veracruz and Acadia, we've decided to go with another Pilot to replace our '03 Pilot EX-L.

All are excellent vehicles. It's nice to have so many really good options to pick from. The CX-9 drives great, but we didn't like the huge intrusion from the center console and the rock-hard leather. The Acadia was impressive, but was a bit too large and too expensive for our needs. The Veracruz was totally impressive - it came down to the VC and the Pilot. The VC would end up costing more (although it had a few more bells and whistles). Three things tipped the scales to the Pilot:

1. Dealers are discounting them quite a bit more since it's in its fifth year (and last for the current design). We will end up paying less for an '07 EX-L than we paid for our '03 EX-L - and it has more "stuff" on it.

2. Resale value - this is what really convinced me. Despite Hyundai's recent quality improvements, their resale value stinks. If I went to trade it before it was paid off, I'd definitely be upside-down. This is the strength of Hondas. We still owe a bit on our '03 but have plenty of equity so we don't need any cash in the transaction.

3. Familiarity with the Pilot and Honda quality in general. We love our Pilot - it fits our needs perfectly.

So while I won't have the thrill of something "new and different", I'm happy that we're getting a great deal on a great vehicle.

baggs32

If you consider sales being almost 20% off from the same time last year as "expected", then I guess we have different views.

I think you're missing the point. Last year Mustang sales were way higher than Ford expected them to be. That they are off 20% this year is to be expected and was expected last year but sales never did taper off. Higher than normal first year sales were expected but MY06 was crazy high too. I had to drive 20 miles from home to buy an '06 GT last August. After nearly 2.5 years on the market you would think I wouldn't have to do that wouldn't you?

That's what happens when there's so much more choice out there and hype wears off.

What choice? Since Mustang sales tapered off I haven't seen any sales increase for the other cars in the class like the Z or the Eclipse.

Back on topic now:

That point does fit well with these CUVs IMO. It's getting to the point that there are too many choices for family haulers now and they are starting to look the same on paper. All you really have to choose is your style and the rest, like HP and interior features/room, are pretty much a wash. I feel there's a little too much time spend arguing about an inch here or an inch there on this thread but that's all there really is to argue about I guess. That's probably a good thing too. No one seems to be arguing about reliability or quality anymore and that's a good thing too.

mrblonde49

Look at Scion. They are completely redoing the xB, even though it was still selling well. Toyota knows how to sell cars. "

Doesn't the xB sell around 3K a month? It's just a niche car, really....

brickfrenzy

This is something I've never seen discussed regarding pretty much any vehicle, but it seems useful information. When all the doors are open on these CUVs, how wide is it? That measurement ends up being a mix of vehicle width, door length and door open angle, and for those of us with relatively narrow garages, it would be nice to know.

jg6

Get a tape and measure them and let everyone know...........

wlbrown9

"Nothing retro about the Flex. Looks like nothing old. Neither does the Element or xB or Land Rover."

Sorry, but it you compare the Flex to a 2000 - 2002 Izuzu Trooper, not much difference. If you stretch the Trooper out a little longer and compress the roof line down a little...not much difference at all. The Flex in front of the windshield from the side looks almost exactly like the Trooper. Major difference is that the spare is not mounted on the rear door like the Trooper.

[Deleted User]

Well, sure, I can see the resemblance a bit...although the Trooper (I had one too) is a shorter, taller ride. But the Trooper isn't retro either! I don't think 1990s vehicles that sold until 2002 qualify as "retro."

Boxy bulk is one of the niche looks that is in. Otherwise Hummers and Jeeps and Land Rovers and Elements and xBs wouldn't be out there in traffic. Ford won't harm itself by having the rounded trendy shaped Edge, the bland Taurus X, and the more butch Flex to better cover the market. No one has done it with a mainstream CUV yet. It could really take off. Those who hate it are giving testament to its polarizing design. Good. Ford needs a few less bland products that grab more attention.

mrblonde49

"Those who hate it are giving testament to its polarizing design. Good."

Is it good for Ford, though?

You have a large chunk of people crossing it off their list after seeing the first picture. Those left will then compare it to a very crowded field.

I guess we'll know in 3 or so years...

[Deleted User]

A field in which it will definitely stand out. Think Chrysler 300. Very polarizing design that many people find hideous and would never consider ownig. Became a very bright spot for Chrysler, while the more carefully drawn Ford 500 languished.

mrblonde49

Think Chrysler 300. Very polarizing design that many people find hideous and would never consider ownig."

I never ran into anyone who didn't like the looks of the 300. I guess you could call it polarizing, but my impression was that it was a big hit and admired by many

[Deleted User]

My. my, you certainly haven't been reading some of the forums here. Lots of people hate those looks. Lots!

bonomojo

With a 2 year old and another on the way, I've been looking for a three-row vehicle that wasn't too big, had a strong enough engine (V6), decent gas mileage, and longevity (10+ years of driving 'till the wheels fall off). On my list were the Saturn Outlook, Honda Odyssey and CX-9.

It's been a very tough decision, but I think I've settled on the CX-9. Like other families we wanted lots of seating and maybe something cooler looking than a mini-van. I wasn't particularly looking for rear entertainment or navigation or back-up cameras or bluetooth or keyless this or that. What was particularly important to me was how do I fit 2 child seats in a three row vehicle and have seating for others besides me and my spouse.

CAR SEATS are pain...
My conclusion is that the Odyssey has the best seating for use with more than 1 child seat. If you need to use 2 forward facing TODDLER seats, you can forget about easily accessing the third row for the CX-9 or the Outlook. I took a forward facing toddler seat and a rear-facing infant seat (base with a carrier that locks into it) and fastened them both into each of the 3 vehicles.

In the Outlook with captain chairs, you cannot get around the toddler seat in the second row to get to the third row. To get to the third row you have to remove the infant carrier from its base in the captain chair of the second row, squeeze past the base and then squeeze between the two captain chairs with their armrests. Otherwise you'll have to remove one of the child seats altogether to move the second row chair up as it is designed to get to the third row. There is a tether loop, but no latch, for a child seat in the middle of the third row bench.

In the CX-9, only a 60/40 bench is available on the second row. There are 3 tethers for child seats on the second row, but only the two outboard seats on the second row have latches...so that the child seat in the middle row would have to use the seat belt rather than a latch. I did not try putting 3 child seats in that row but it looked like it would be a tight fit even using just a slim booster seat in the middle. There are no tether or latch connections for a child seat on the third row of the CX-9. Neither side of the 60/40 second-row-bench is going to move forward much with a child seat in place; neither side will slide forward far enough to access the third row with the toddler and infant seats in place. BUT if you remove the infant carrier from its base, that side of the bench will slide forward far enough AND the back of the seat will fold forward far enough that there is just enough room to climb into the third row. Once the occupant is in the third row, you slide the bench back, put the carrier in its base, and the occupant is trapped in the back of the third row! Also getting out of the CX-9 in this situation is somewhat awkward than when getting in. It seems like it would almost be easier to exit from the third row going backwards in this case.

This seating arrangement could be a problem in the CX-9 for the claustrophobic because there is barely enough headroom in the third row. For anyone more than 6' tall, their head will be close to touching the ceiling. There is plenty of headroom in the Outlook's third row.

With 2 tall people (around 6') in the front, 2 car seats in the second row and 2 tall people in the third row, both the Outlook and CX-9 had about the same legroom. The front row was just enough legroom, the second row was just enough room for the child seats, and the third row was slightly cramped for them. In comparison, all 3 rows of the Odyssey were comfortable in the same situation, and of course with the way the seat slides over in the second row, there was no problem getting into the third row with child seats in the Odyssey's second-row captain chairs.

(You think I had fun at the dealerships today doing all these little room tests?)

The bottom line on these 2 CUVs is: if you have 2 children under 4, it is somewhat awkward to impractical to make any use of the third row because of the child seats...defeating what should be one of the primary purposes of these vehicles: to appeal to young families. I guess they are designed mostly for families with older kids.

I think the CX-9 would have made a world of difference by putting tether and latch connections in both seats of the third row for when the grandparents come in town to visit for a week. Then the 2 child seats could go in the third row and grandma and wife could sit in the second row. Sigh.

With all of that said, I think I'm still willing to make the compromise that the CUV forces...the seating configuration is not that inconvenient, but the engineers still have a ways to go to make these CUVs YOUNG-family-friendly.

In terms of options and all of that, all 3 were comparable in price and quality. Obviously the CX-9 and Outlook are cooler looking than the Odyssey. I might even go so far to say that the cargo space in the CX-9 and Outlook are more practical than the Odyssey because the seats fold down in the CUVs, but the Odyssey's second row captain chairs must be removed. On the other hand, I like sliding rear doors more than the longish doors of the CX-9.

Any thoughts?

metmdx

Great analysis of the predicament I think a lot of people will find themselves in. Before I read your 'adventure', I was thinking, cause I went out today poking around and came to the conclusion that anybody who thinks Acadia/Outlook etc., are competing with the likes of Pathfinder, Pilot, Highlander (PPH) are completely out to lunch. None of these (PPH) come anywhere near the Lamdas in practice much less theory. You need to be a 4ft 8inch Houdini to get in/out of the 3rd row of these vehicles, much less sit in one.

Unfortunately, minivans seem to be the ONLY alternative for anyone seeking REAL 3rd row functionality. I'm intrigued by your statement that you can't get around a toddler seat in captains chairs to get to the 3rd row. I'm considering captains seats in Acadia as the whole 2nd row bench seat 60/40 2 car seat thing is just too much process to deal with, and really don't want to do the minivan thing.

Thanks, metmdx

baggs32

I never ran into anyone who didn't like the looks of the 300.

Well you've run into me. I don't find the 300 to be offensive but I think DCX took a cheap shot at Bently. I actually prefer the looks of the Five Hundred to the 300 simply because the former will be inoffensive for years to come. The 300 is starting to look like a novelty car to me instead of a family hauler. I still like the Magnum though.

explorerx4

if you are keeping the vehicle for 10 years, forget about the car seats after a couple of more years. if you need extra storage, get a roof top cargo box.

nxs138

I wouldn't worry about using a seatbelt instead of latches; in fact, Consumer Report found that they secured most seats better with a seatbelt than using latches.

With that said, you're correct about access to 3rd row: without the ability to slide that second row forward, it's not easy crawling in there, even with the captain's chairs. So if grandparents have to fit, I'd either have to remove one of the seats (which actually only takes about less than a minute to put back in when you know what you're doing), or move the car seats into the 3rd row while the grandparents are in town.

But it's not a huge problem for me, since I'll rarely have people in that third seat; it'll be down most of the time.

bonomojo

nxs138, I'm indifferent to whether I use latches or a seatbelt for the connection on the bottom; one of my points about the CX-9's third row is that there are no tether connections. So your suggestion to "move the car seats into the 3rd row" doesn't work for toddler seats. An infant seat on a base, no problem, but not a toddler seat since those need a tether connection.

It's a thoughtless effort by the CX-9 engineers...how hard is it to put a 2 inch metal loop for a tether strap behind each of the seats in the third row?...

freealfas

But there are seatbelts and most if not all toddler car seats can still be installed with the seat belt method or latch system, still the lack of latch is an oversight. Suprising as my FS has the latch in place 2nd/3rd row, and with mazda being a corporate cousin I would have thought it would have been avaialble in a cx-9. I guess they were saving the money so they could put the 20" dubs on...

mchappell

The 2nd row/3rd row/car seat issue is one of the reasons we didn't go with the CX-9, even though I really liked how it drove, looked, and felt (the other being the confined feeling of the first row).

We went with the Outlook, because, when necessary, we can put both car seats on the 60% side of the 2nd row bench, and still be able to flip/slide the 40% side.

For the 90% of the time it's just the 5 of us, our oldest simply sits in the middle between the two car seats. The other 10% of the time, it's a 60 second affair to slide of the seats to the middle.

Mark

bonomojo

freealfas, you are wrong:

Most modern forward-facing toddler seats require both: 1) either a seat belt or a latch for the bottom of the seat; AND 2) a tether connection for the top of the seat.

It's not an issue of choosing between seat belt and latch; it's an issue of no TETHER connection. In other words, it requires a latch and a tether; or a seat belt and a tether.

You can't put a forward facing toddler seat in the third
row of the CX-9 because there are no TETHER connections on that row.

nxs138

You might be able to retrofit a tether system for the third row, but that's just a pain.

I'd be interesting to see if there is a third row tether for CX-9's sold in Canada: tethering a forward-facing seat is a law there, but as far as I know there is no such law in the US (although it's a darn good idea to tether.)

*edit: just took a look at the Canadian CX-9 manual: no tethers in the 3rd row in the Canadian models either*