The "FS vs. the world" discussion here has not been nearly as bad as the "torque vs. horsepower" discussion in the "mainstream sedans" thread. That one was, to put it nicely, mind numbing. Here we are at least talking about the cars themselves. I will take freealfas bait. The US is not going to take conservation seriously until the average person can no longer afford to drive due to gas prices or shortages or until the government forces it on us. From what I read, the government is moving in that direction with the Senate's committee vote this week to require a 35 MPG CAFE with no truck exclusions. From what I see here in KS gas has gone up 20 cents a gallon in 2 days, so we are moving towards the point that we can't afford our consumptive habits!
Diesel is already available in many countries but will be able to meet US's tough 50 state certification in a year or two. Should be here by the end of the decade along with a whole host of diesel variants from other manufacturers as well. Diesel is expected to improve fuel economy by 30%...3.0L V6 240hp torque ??? has to be 300+ ?? - Hyundai S-engine featuring BorgWarner turbocharing and cool-start features.
Current gas version gets about 18/25 fuel economy IIRC.
Joe, Nice color picks! I like the Vera Cruz but went with the Outlook instead because it had more space in the rear and options I desired; most importantly nav and DVD with sunroof option (knocked out the CX-9). The CX-9 for some reason did not appeal to me at on a gut level however I will say it handles very good and the tranny is smooth. Good luck with your VC it is a looker!
I agree, it is a nice color but unfortuantely, this is not my Veracruz, and I don't own one (I would like one though - when I sat in the test car, I didn't want to leave b/c the saddle leather seating surface felt so nice).
All of these CUVs you mentioned are fantastic, in my opinion.
Too bad it is a sharp cuv. The VC was the best overall value of those I mentioned when haggling (or not in my case.... Saturn),but in the end the Outlook had all the check marks on my need/want list. When it comes to interior space Outlook is hard to beat in it's class.
I don't think the Freestyle is necesarily much BETTER than the other vehicles in the comparison . . but it certainly does NOT deserve the "abuse" it seems to get . . especially regarding the perceived lack of power. And I have to agree with you about not wanting to give up the CVT for the 3.5L . . . time may prove me wrong, of course. But I find the CVT a brilliant way of keeping the engine where it needs to be to get great acceleration . . you just need to know how to drive it, and not be afraid of high rpms.
I recommend the Limited for several reasons, but the one I will list is that it has white gauges with black numbers; the other models have black gauges with white numbers, which are hard to read when going under tunnels, etc.
I definitely agree there. I've driven a friend's non-LTD version, and can't stand trying to read the gages on it during the day.
Bottom line, It's a CUV not a sports car, if you want 300+hp, buy a sports car and track it, if you need a CUV to carry people and stuff why not make it a reasonable compromise of power, economy and space. This generation of CUV's I contend are going in the wrong direction and being sold as progress. . . . . The current path will lead simply to a CUV comparable to a traditional SUV differing only in the fact they will be unibody as opposed to body on frame
Exactly. Now, I suppose I should be HAPPY about this, since I work in the oil and gas exploration/production business. But I find it ironic that people love to complain about high oil and gasoline prices, yet they STILL seem to be demanding more and more power under the hood (power that simply isn't used, IMO, by the VAST majority of people) . . just imagine what could be done to improve mpg and reduce demand on gasoline, lowering prices, if people demanded better fuel efficiency instead of "overpower" vehicles.
Perhaps people could show a little restraint and focus on comparisons without feeling compelled to defend one's purchase.
Fair enough . . but continual derision of the Freestyle as "underpowered" by those who don't have a clue as to how it actually performs in the real world is something that deserves to be "challenged" . . at least occasionally.
Don't people deserve to hear from those who actually DRIVE these vehicles that they aren't really underpowered?
Why do you feel the need to slam or respond to his post?
I'm merely pointing out that if he thinks the thread needs to have more "on topic" and "good posts" in it, then it's far more effective to ADD such posts to the thread, instead of complaining about other posts.
It would also be a good thing to go back and look at WHY some are "defending" the Freestyle . . just perhaps it's because it gets "attacked" for being "underpowered", and we don't believe that it is? Check the comparable 0-60 times between the vehicles, and then see if a charge of "underpowered" is really warranted. There's more to acceleration than displacement . . it also has to do with the car's transmission, for example, and its weight.
The "FS vs. the world" discussion here has not been nearly as bad as the "torque vs. horsepower" discussion in the "mainstream sedans" thread. That one was, to put it nicely, mind numbing
That's only because so many people don't understand basic physics. I posted three EXCELLENT links to articles there that should settle that question once and for all.
Going to the Hyundai site to see/read more about VC specs I decided to use the comparison tool. While not huge, some more than others listed below are factors people are looking for with comparative information when considering the purchase of a CUV.
Not being an owner of the others available for comparison in the generator it would be interesting to see other owner's findings as to other inaccuracies the comparison generator provides if any.
Front Folding Seat VC - Standard FS - Not Available Second Row Split Bench VC - Seat Standard FS - Not Available
Exterior Rails VC - Standard FS - Not Available
Curb Weight Manual (lbs) Not Applicable Not Applicable Curb Weight Automatic (lbs) VC - Not Listed FS - 3959
Standard GVWR (lbs) Not Listed Not Listed Maximum GVWR (lbs) Not Listed Not Listed Standard Payload (lbs) Not Listed Not Listed Maximum Payload (lbs) Not Listed Not Listed
Cargo Volume (EPA) VC - Not Listed FS - Not Applicable(How is this not applicable Passenger Volume (EPA) VC - Not Listed FS - Not Applicable(same question)
The first three are just plain wrong and the remaining information is available all over the internet so why not just disclose it as they made the choice to provide a comparison tool but they won't populate it with complete and or accurate information. That seems poor form, just leave the tool out then.
freealfas, All the car makers play this game to some degree especially when it comes to measuring leg and hip room numbers(one must often ask how did they measure this?). Towing capacity same deal,some will tow the same load with the same tow load capacity numbers but do the job far superior then others.(in the cuv class we must be very careful about this) if towing is important to you the reports so far about the towing experiences have not been good so far including the Lambda's as far as rated towing is concerned in the real world. This is the main reason I waited before making my Outlook purchase. learned a long time ago you must see for yourself. Car shopping can be a task I don't mind but my wife hates it. I drove the CX-7 about a year ago and loved it but was too small for my families needs;read about the CX-9 and thought "that's the one" based on specs it appeared it would be a fit. Wrong! the interior in the rear is too small for my needs anyway. I would never place an order for any vehical as many have done for the CX-9 before even being able to test drive it based on specs or a review (based on Edmunds SUV midsize of the year accolade many orders were taken months before they hit our shores)this award was given while the CX-9 was in pre-production still have not figured that one out yet. Let's hope new EPA MPG measuring/testing guidelines help in that area. One other thing (they really love playing this game)The comparisons are often not apples to apples with regard to trim level thus giving their vehical an upper hand. I've seen comparisons of the Outlook but only using the XE not the XR in tables by it's competitors if they did the XR would have blown them away or would go toe to toe as it does with the MDX for much less $$$. I agree the table is flawed(the entire Hyundai site needs work not enough info) but the VC is a great value overall. Have you driven one yet?
Barnstormer, I have not read a post about FS being underpowered here in weeks. Frankly I believe people shopping for a new cuv do not care about FS at all and sales numbers prove it big time. I think the point being made is chill out a bit and keep the threads relevant all comments/post to this forum should not lead to Freestyle land. Let some fresh air in here!!!
Based on the number of replies in succession you have just made would suggest you are a little obsessed. Stand down for two or three days and let others post about cuv's other then FS can you do that? prove me wrong...
When browsing thru all these forums, the FS definitely is not a problem free car but the majority of its owner defends it quite whole-heartedly. So I decided to join the wagon before they are all gone, it sounds a little bit strange to buy a model at its last production year but mine comes in next weeek. Lets see. p.s. even if I'm stupid, I know that I'm not alone.
Yellowtiger, I would never say you are stupid for buying a FS I'll bet you got a heck of a deal. If you don't mind my asking with so many choices on the market with more current design and technology why FS? In my market you would not have to order one simply blow off the dust and drive away.
For the life of me, I can't figure out the point to this forum's topic.
It's a comparison topic which means comparing vehicles to each other. Inevitably, a thinking person will conclude that one vehicle is better than another. Generally, one does not compare the indistinguishible.
I was the poster of msg #1331. If you read back, you'll see it was in response to post #1329, which started "You people are high...". If you read my entire post, you'll also see that I said my wife and I looked at the Freestyle in '05/'06, and really liked its value and features. However, we were not able to make it work space-wise (a 14 yr old, and two kids in car/booster seats). Additionally, we didn't think the front seats were very comfortable, though we have found this to be a problem in almost everything we've looked at, though that's a separate story (our previous vehicle was a Suburban, which we both found very comfortable).
In fact, we were next to a Freestyle LTD today, and my wife commented that she liked the way it looks, and was sorry we couldn't make it work out. This was with no knowledge of the debate on these forums.
Regarding my original post: ugly - not really, simply plain underpowered - as others have said, it's not a race car, and, as such, probably is sufficiently powered to get its designed task complete uncomfortable - for us, absolutely, but I understand this is completely subjective.
I think people are getting upset, not because of the contents of the posts, but the tone. As mentioned earlier, a post that starts with "You people are high", or "amazing how dumb folks are to put looks so high up on the list" (#1371), are sure to garner some emotional responses.
As I've said before, if a buyer does their research, and gives the vehicles a fair comparison, the decision they make is in their own best interest, and nobody has the right to fault or criticize that decision.
bhanes, I'd looked at the Saturn Outlook, Hyundai Santa Fe and Suzuki XL7 at the same time. First the Outlook, I like it but I've to drive it in carefully to my single garage, it's 8 inches wider than the Toyota Previa that I used to zoom in, secondly most of my traffic is stop and go within 4 miles and that means I've to spend some extra money in speedup and slowdown the extra 800lbs.The Santa Fe looks and drives good except there's no room in back when the third row is up and that means that if you needed to put something in the back then basically it's a 5 seater. The XL7 drinks too much gas and a strangely big turning radius. I used to keep my vechile a long time, so the plain look of the FS is an advantage that ten years down the road it still looks plain, not out. Finally all is still "In the eyes of the beholder". Why I needed to bring one in? In my local dealership they've only two FS, one red FWD and one white AWD which my other half doesn't like the colour(becareful of fatal mistakes), also the dust on them are a liitle bit heavy as they are both 06s, when you check on their VINs they've been there for quite a while. The one that I ordered is actually ready made, production date February 07, the dealer just look over Ford's inventory and see what they can find and it seemed that there is not much left in there now. Last but not the least is money, here in Canada Ford is giving you a $2500 allowance and 0% 60mths financing on the FS and that added up even with a 3.9% interest meant a $6000 to 7000 there. Also you can push the dealer a little bit here as this is an unexpected sale so they give me another $1600 plus remote start with security system plus bug and window deflectors.
Tidester: Just my .02 here; I would say "the vast majority of drivers are fairly lucky". Not a day goes by that I don't see literally a dozen or more bonehead moves by drivers (from the 18 yr old to the 98 yr old), that by the sheer 'luck of the Irish' or any other phenomenon you want to refer, doesn't result in an accident. I don't think there is a valid correlation between the number of accidents and the number of registered vehicles that you can make that blanket statement. I truly believe that if you put every person who has a valid license through something other than the standard 'drivers test' (lets say a spin thru Lime Rock or something of that nature) that many (maybe even the 'vast majority') wouldn't make one lap before totalling the vehicle they normally drive. OK...maybe .05
I would say "the vast majority of drivers are fairly lucky"
That may very well be true. However, no one here has actually defined just what "a godawful driver" is per the original poster's claim. I think that the "vast majority" of drivers believe they are good drivers which would conflict with the claim that the "vast majority are godawful."
I was simply suggesting a more objective measure, i.e. the ratio of accidents to the number of registered vehicles which works out to about 1 in 35. Averaged over millions of drivers, the possibility that the vast majority are simply lucky becomes rather unlikely. I am, nevertheless, open to better suggestions.
Regarding my original post: ugly - not really, simply plain
I've got no quarrels with that . . some people will think it's plain, others will think it's ugly, and some will love it.
uncomfortable - for us, absolutely, but I understand this is completely subjective.
I can't complain about that, either. As you say, it's largely subjective . . but certainly a lot more important than the looks, I'd think we'd all agree.
underpowered - as others have said, it's not a race car, and, as such, probably is sufficiently powered to get its designed task complete
And that's where I take issue . . unless, of course, you wish to categorize the entire category as "underpowered". None are sports cars . . all seem to have similar 0-60 times, etc.
IMO, people *think* it's underpowered because it has "only" a 3.0L 200+/- HP engine. But, they aren't considering other important factors, like the relative weight of the vehicle and the transmission.
the decision they make is in their own best interest, and nobody has the right to fault or criticize that decision.
I'm not criticizing anybody's decision . . however, I do think the term "underpowered" (when applied only to the Freestyle and not the others) is something that stands to be "corrected" (or at least rebutted).
I think people are getting upset, not because of the contents of the posts, but the tone.
Probably . . though I can assure you that my real "tone" is probably a lot different than some of the others here probably imagine.
Additionally, we didn't think the front seats were very comfortable, though we have found this to be a problem in almost everything we've looked at, though that's a separate story (our previous vehicle was a Suburban, which we both found very comfortable).
I think you'll find it hard to find ANYTHing with as much room and versatility as a Suburban in this group of vehicles. They aren't really intended to replace the large SUV's . . really just an offering for those who need a bit more than a traditional wagon, and about the same as a minivan, who are now buying large SUVs (or doing without).
Yellowtiger, Thanks for the response. I completely understand your reasoning with regard to the stop and go cost equation the FS is set up well to address that issue. My Outlook is great on the highway about 25 MPG,however I am coming to the conclusion around town mileage is only about 14-18 MPG (forgive the mileage variances I've only had it three weeks 1,100 miles on it, the jury is still out). If being low key and most of your drive is around town/close to home the FS is a great choice. I agree it should age well the Taurus X looks just like it to me.
You did get a great deal!!! Those are strong discounts and low interest rates.
Most people believe themselves to be good drivers. Those who have sub par skills usually don't even know it.
Fortunately, we have much safer cars these days, and often even poor drivers can avoid accidents, given better handling vehicles, safer brakes, skid oontrols. Moreover, our roads and signs are better marked, construction zones have about a million forewarnings, on and off ramps are redesigned for safety, etc., etc.
But still I see too many drivers unable to take advantage of traffic openings when it is perfectly safe to do so, and their too sluggish responses causing unnecessary backups and bottlenecks. These same folks, who have somehow never learned to safely merge onto an expressway at traffic speed, will nevertheless soon be driving too fast for conditions, once they truly get themselves underway.
Most people who drive too fast for conditions get a "pass." They take the risk, largely unknown to them, and nothing bad happens. Some of them never learn a thing about safe driving until they have an accident. Not to mention cell phone usage in heavy traffic--or worse, the doofuses who text message while driving. No matter how adept you are on a phone, your reaction time is slowed from that which you have when not blabbing.
Driving a CUV perhaps can increase a family's margin of safety over a smaller vehicle--now that most CUV's have roll stability control. But so can taking a driving course to learn how to use your vehicle's accident avoidance capabilities, and to install some discipline in your own driving habits. Almost everyone now thinks he or she is a good driver. It isn;t so. It's like having bad breath. You usually don't know until it is gently pointed out to you.
Radios do not have the same distractive element as phones. This is well proven with field tests. Taking note of a radio is little different from observing traffic conditions, stop signs, a slowing truck. But phones require another level of personal attention...even if you talk at your radio host, there is no expectation of a response back. Likewise scenery requires no response from you, other than to be there (assuming you aren't taking your eyes off the road for seconds at a time).
With kids, you may have a point. I have seen parents who seem to believe that driving offspring somewhere should constitute quality time spent with the little rugrats. Thus, if the kid says something in the back seat, some parents erroneously believe it deserves a response (beyond the sensible "stop what you are doing right now, or I am pulling over!)"
Hello. My wife and I have spent the last month or so looking at new vehicles to replace our 2001 Chrysler Town & Country minivan. We seem to have our search narrowed down to a Mazda CX9 and a GMC Acadia/Buick Enclave.
I am waiting for the local dealership to get an Enclave, so we can test drive it. We saw one in person at the local auto show. We are basing most of our Enclave thinking off of our GMC Acadia test drives, as well as internet photos and discussions.
I REALLY liked how the Mazda CX9 drove - very smooth. But I also REALLY like the second row captains chars of the GMC Acadia. Maybe it is because it more closely matches our current minivan configuration, but it just seems much easier to get into the third row by walking between the two 2nd row captions chairs, rather than flipping/folding the bench seat(s). When sitting in the 3rd row, it also does not feel as "closed in" to me with the 2nd row captions chairs, as apposed to the 2nd row bench seat.
I was wondering if anyone knows if Mazda has any plans for the CX9 to have an option for 2nd row captains chairs in the future? maybe 08 or 09 models?
If you really liked the 2nd row captains chairs, check out the Freestyle. It is seating for 6, just like the CX-9 with hypothetical 2nd row captains. You can also get a great deal on them right now. I really liked it when I test drove a bunch before our recent purchase.
I am not so sure this is so much a real open comparison of Crossover SUVs as it is a running advertisement for Freestyles. For me personally, the Freestyle was never even in the top three after I checked it out.
Believe me, I am not a Freestyle true believer. It just seems to me that if you only need seating for 6, it is an option. To be honest, the seating for 6 is what crossed it off of my list because I needed the capacity of a minivan.
I really liked it because it is smaller than the other vehicles in this discussion. I like to drive small cars and hope to get a MINI after the kids are gone. I don't like driving huge land tanks.
My wife is waiting for the Enclave, her Rendezvous lease is up in June. I like the Acadia, but think she would prefer the Enclave. Before purchasing a Chrysler Pacifica I was interested in the Freestyle, nice vehicle but the Pacifica was better for my needs (I also was holding out for second row captains seats arrangement). There is a "good" review of Acadia, MDX, & CX-9 in the June 2007 Motor Trend magazine. The CX-9 rated quite favorably, but still may not meet your "requirements". Happy hunting.
"...as it is a running advertisement for Freestyles."
What it actually turned into was a "let's bash the FS" more often than not with no personal experience from some of the poster's and then when anyone pursued or respectfully offered anything to the contrary of popular opinion it was seen as poor form. Not to say there weren't some zealots, me included at different times but it was a bit disappointing no one was willing to debate respectfully.
You seem to be the exception then because what seemed to be happening to me was a lambda lovefest. Offer anything to the contrary of their wonderfullness and you were branded a gang rapist or thread hijacker.
Doggone it, that was the shortest counter in history; it didn't even get to the first post before the Freestyle was mentioned (OK, it was "FS", but still, it is the same machine).
Well, since we "broke the counter", let me say that I think the FS is one of the best cars I've ever owned. I'm just interested in the other models as well.
Shall we reset the counter again?
Just to reiterate, how many posts can we get through without mentioning the Freestyle? :surprise:
At least no one can ever refer to the FS as a "repackaged minivan", as I referred to the Acadia a number of posts ago. But what do I know, I drive a Dodge station wagon!
Comments
Current gas version gets about 18/25 fuel economy IIRC.
With the saddle leather seating surface:
Lots more here:
http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/HyundaiVeracruz/Photos.htm
I respect your opinion, but it's too bad, because this is the forum that compares the models. We could use more input.
Nice color picks!
I like the Vera Cruz but went with the Outlook instead because it had more space in the rear and options I desired; most importantly nav and DVD with sunroof option (knocked out the CX-9).
The CX-9 for some reason did not appeal to me at on a gut level however I will say it handles very good and the tranny is smooth.
Good luck with your VC it is a looker!
It's not about bait, it's about a discussion...
All of these CUVs you mentioned are fantastic, in my opinion.
Truthfully, I was really hoping to have some sort of discussion about my points as opposed to being berated about mindless FS proffering.
The VC was the best overall value of those I mentioned when haggling (or not in my case.... Saturn),but in the end the Outlook had all the check marks on my need/want list.
When it comes to interior space Outlook is hard to beat in it's class.
Very well said, sir (or ma'am).
I don't think the Freestyle is necesarily much BETTER than the other vehicles in the comparison . . but it certainly does NOT deserve the "abuse" it seems to get . . especially regarding the perceived lack of power. And I have to agree with you about not wanting to give up the CVT for the 3.5L . . . time may prove me wrong, of course. But I find the CVT a brilliant way of keeping the engine where it needs to be to get great acceleration . . you just need to know how to drive it, and not be afraid of high rpms.
I definitely agree there. I've driven a friend's non-LTD version, and can't stand trying to read the gages on it during the day.
Exactly. Now, I suppose I should be HAPPY about this, since I work in the oil and gas exploration/production business. But I find it ironic that people love to complain about high oil and gasoline prices, yet they STILL seem to be demanding more and more power under the hood (power that simply isn't used, IMO, by the VAST majority of people) . . just imagine what could be done to improve mpg and reduce demand on gasoline, lowering prices, if people demanded better fuel efficiency instead of "overpower" vehicles.
Fair enough . . but continual derision of the Freestyle as "underpowered" by those who don't have a clue as to how it actually performs in the real world is something that deserves to be "challenged" . . at least occasionally.
Don't people deserve to hear from those who actually DRIVE these vehicles that they aren't really underpowered?
I'm merely pointing out that if he thinks the thread needs to have more "on topic" and "good posts" in it, then it's far more effective to ADD such posts to the thread, instead of complaining about other posts.
It would also be a good thing to go back and look at WHY some are "defending" the Freestyle . . just perhaps it's because it gets "attacked" for being "underpowered", and we don't believe that it is? Check the comparable 0-60 times between the vehicles, and then see if a charge of "underpowered" is really warranted. There's more to acceleration than displacement . . it also has to do with the car's transmission, for example, and its weight.
That's only because so many people don't understand basic physics. I posted three EXCELLENT links to articles there that should settle that question once and for all.
Not being an owner of the others available for comparison in the generator it would be interesting to see other owner's findings as to other inaccuracies the comparison generator provides if any.
Front Folding Seat
VC - Standard FS - Not Available
Second Row Split Bench
VC - Seat Standard FS - Not Available
Exterior Rails
VC - Standard FS - Not Available
Curb Weight Manual (lbs)
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Curb Weight Automatic (lbs)
VC - Not Listed FS - 3959
Standard GVWR (lbs)
Not Listed Not Listed
Maximum GVWR (lbs)
Not Listed Not Listed
Standard Payload (lbs)
Not Listed Not Listed
Maximum Payload (lbs)
Not Listed Not Listed
Cargo Volume (EPA)
VC - Not Listed FS - Not Applicable(How is this not applicable
Passenger Volume (EPA)
VC - Not Listed FS - Not Applicable(same question)
The first three are just plain wrong and the remaining information is available all over the internet so why not just disclose it as they made the choice to provide a comparison tool but they won't populate it with complete and or accurate information. That seems poor form, just leave the tool out then.
All the car makers play this game to some degree especially when it comes to measuring leg and hip room numbers(one must often ask how did they measure this?). Towing capacity same deal,some will tow the same load with the same tow load capacity numbers but do the job far superior then others.(in the cuv class we must be very careful about this) if towing is important to you the reports so far about the towing experiences have not been good so far including the Lambda's as far as rated towing is concerned in the real world.
This is the main reason I waited before making my Outlook purchase. learned a long time ago you must see for yourself. Car shopping can be a task I don't mind but my wife hates it.
I drove the CX-7 about a year ago and loved it but was too small for my families needs;read about the CX-9 and thought "that's the one" based on specs it appeared it would be a fit. Wrong! the interior in the rear is too small for my needs anyway.
I would never place an order for any vehical as many have done for the CX-9 before even being able to test drive it based on specs or a review (based on Edmunds SUV midsize of the year accolade many orders were taken months before they hit our shores)this award was given while the CX-9 was in pre-production still have not figured that one out yet.
Let's hope new EPA MPG measuring/testing guidelines help in that area.
One other thing (they really love playing this game)The comparisons are often not apples to apples with regard to trim level thus giving their vehical an upper hand.
I've seen comparisons of the Outlook but only using the XE not the XR in tables by it's competitors if they did the XR would have blown them away or would go toe to toe as it does with the MDX for much less $$$.
I agree the table is flawed(the entire Hyundai site needs work not enough info) but the VC is a great value overall.
Have you driven one yet?
I have not read a post about FS being underpowered here in weeks. Frankly I believe people shopping for a new cuv do not care about FS at all and sales numbers prove it big time.
I think the point being made is chill out a bit and keep the threads relevant all comments/post to this forum should not lead to Freestyle land. Let some fresh air in here!!!
Based on the number of replies in succession you have just made would suggest you are a little obsessed. Stand down for two or three days and let others post about cuv's other then FS can you do that? prove me wrong...
A quick review leads to at least one. Post #1331 on May 5.
And that doesn't include people replying to my assertions that it isn't underpowered (I'd say those are also posts claiming that it IS underpowered).
Based on the number of replies in succession you have just made would suggest you are a little obsessed.
Nope . . I simply read and reply all at once during the day. Nothing more.
Stand down for two or three days and let others post about cuv's other then FS can you do that?
Last time I checked, I wasn't preventing anybody from posting.
I would never say you are stupid for buying a FS I'll bet you got a heck of a deal.
If you don't mind my asking with so many choices on the market with more current design and technology why FS?
In my market you would not have to order one simply blow off the dust and drive away.
Good luck and enjoy it!
For the life of me, I can't figure out the point to this forum's topic. It's always going to disolve into a "my car is better than your car" argument.
It's a comparison topic which means comparing vehicles to each other. Inevitably, a thinking person will conclude that one vehicle is better than another. Generally, one does not compare the indistinguishible.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
In fact, we were next to a Freestyle LTD today, and my wife commented that she liked the way it looks, and was sorry we couldn't make it work out. This was with no knowledge of the debate on these forums.
Regarding my original post:
ugly - not really, simply plain
underpowered - as others have said, it's not a race car, and, as such, probably is sufficiently powered to get its designed task complete
uncomfortable - for us, absolutely, but I understand this is completely subjective.
I think people are getting upset, not because of the contents of the posts, but the tone. As mentioned earlier, a post that starts with "You people are high", or "amazing how dumb folks are to put looks so high up on the list" (#1371), are sure to garner some emotional responses.
As I've said before, if a buyer does their research, and gives the vehicles a fair comparison, the decision they make is in their own best interest, and nobody has the right to fault or criticize that decision.
Mark
Just my .02 here; I would say "the vast majority of drivers are fairly lucky". Not a day goes by that I don't see literally a dozen or more bonehead moves by drivers (from the 18 yr old to the 98 yr old), that by the sheer 'luck of the Irish' or any other phenomenon you want to refer, doesn't result in an accident.
I don't think there is a valid correlation between the number of accidents and the number of registered vehicles that you can make that blanket statement. I truly believe that if you put every person who has a valid license through something other than the standard 'drivers test' (lets say a spin thru Lime Rock or something of that nature) that many (maybe even the 'vast majority') wouldn't make one lap before totalling the vehicle they normally drive.
OK...maybe .05
I would say "the vast majority of drivers are fairly lucky"
That may very well be true. However, no one here has actually defined just what "a godawful driver" is per the original poster's claim. I think that the "vast majority" of drivers believe they are good drivers which would conflict with the claim that the "vast majority are godawful."
I was simply suggesting a more objective measure, i.e. the ratio of accidents to the number of registered vehicles which works out to about 1 in 35. Averaged over millions of drivers, the possibility that the vast majority are simply lucky becomes rather unlikely. I am, nevertheless, open to better suggestions.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
ugly - not really, simply plain
I've got no quarrels with that . . some people will think it's plain, others will think it's ugly, and some will love it.
uncomfortable - for us, absolutely, but I understand this is completely subjective.
I can't complain about that, either. As you say, it's largely subjective . . but certainly a lot more important than the looks, I'd think we'd all agree.
underpowered - as others have said, it's not a race car, and, as such, probably is sufficiently powered to get its designed task complete
And that's where I take issue . . unless, of course, you wish to categorize the entire category as "underpowered". None are sports cars . . all seem to have similar 0-60 times, etc.
IMO, people *think* it's underpowered because it has "only" a 3.0L 200+/- HP engine. But, they aren't considering other important factors, like the relative weight of the vehicle and the transmission.
the decision they make is in their own best interest, and nobody has the right to fault or criticize that decision.
I'm not criticizing anybody's decision . . however, I do think the term "underpowered" (when applied only to the Freestyle and not the others) is something that stands to be "corrected" (or at least rebutted).
I think people are getting upset, not because of the contents of the posts, but the tone.
Probably . . though I can assure you that my real "tone" is probably a lot different than some of the others here probably imagine.
Additionally, we didn't think the front seats were very comfortable, though we have found this to be a problem in almost everything we've looked at, though that's a separate story (our previous vehicle was a Suburban, which we both found very comfortable).
I think you'll find it hard to find ANYTHing with as much room and versatility as a Suburban in this group of vehicles. They aren't really intended to replace the large SUV's . . really just an offering for those who need a bit more than a traditional wagon, and about the same as a minivan, who are now buying large SUVs (or doing without).
Thanks for the response.
I completely understand your reasoning with regard to the stop and go cost equation the FS is set up well to address that issue.
My Outlook is great on the highway about 25 MPG,however I am coming to the conclusion around town mileage is only about 14-18 MPG (forgive the mileage variances I've only had it three weeks 1,100 miles on it, the jury is still out).
If being low key and most of your drive is around town/close to home the FS is a great choice.
I agree it should age well the Taurus X looks just like it to me.
You did get a great deal!!!
Those are strong discounts and low interest rates.
Enjoy it!
Fortunately, we have much safer cars these days, and often even poor drivers can avoid accidents, given better handling vehicles, safer brakes, skid oontrols. Moreover, our roads and signs are better marked, construction zones have about a million forewarnings, on and off ramps are redesigned for safety, etc., etc.
But still I see too many drivers unable to take advantage of traffic openings when it is perfectly safe to do so, and their too sluggish responses causing unnecessary backups and bottlenecks. These same folks, who have somehow never learned to safely merge onto an expressway at traffic speed, will nevertheless soon be driving too fast for conditions, once they truly get themselves underway.
Most people who drive too fast for conditions get a "pass." They take the risk, largely unknown to them, and nothing bad happens. Some of them never learn a thing about safe driving until they have an accident. Not to mention cell phone usage in heavy traffic--or worse, the doofuses who text message while driving. No matter how adept you are on a phone, your reaction time is slowed from that which you have when not blabbing.
Driving a CUV perhaps can increase a family's margin of safety over a smaller vehicle--now that most CUV's have roll stability control. But so can taking a driving course to learn how to use your vehicle's accident avoidance capabilities, and to install some discipline in your own driving habits. Almost everyone now thinks he or she is a good driver. It isn;t so. It's like having bad breath. You usually don't know until it is gently pointed out to you.
The same goes for listening to the radio . . or enjoying the scenery.
I think we should ban all radios from cars, and also ban convertibles, just to be safe.
Not to mention small children from cars . . drivers simply can't pay attention with the whiney brats in the vehicles. :P
Agree.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
With kids, you may have a point. I have seen parents who seem to believe that driving offspring somewhere should constitute quality time spent with the little rugrats. Thus, if the kid says something in the back seat, some parents erroneously believe it deserves a response (beyond the sensible "stop what you are doing right now, or I am pulling over!)"
I am waiting for the local dealership to get an Enclave, so we can test drive it. We saw one in person at the local auto show. We are basing most of our Enclave thinking off of our GMC Acadia test drives, as well as internet photos and discussions.
I REALLY liked how the Mazda CX9 drove - very smooth. But I also REALLY like the second row captains chars of the GMC Acadia. Maybe it is because it more closely matches our current minivan configuration, but it just seems much easier to get into the third row by walking between the two 2nd row captions chairs, rather than flipping/folding the bench seat(s). When sitting in the 3rd row, it also does not feel as "closed in" to me with the 2nd row captions chairs, as apposed to the 2nd row bench seat.
I was wondering if anyone knows if Mazda has any plans for the CX9 to have an option for 2nd row captains chairs in the future? maybe 08 or 09 models?
Thanks in advance.
I really liked it because it is smaller than the other vehicles in this discussion. I like to drive small cars and hope to get a MINI after the kids are gone. I don't like driving huge land tanks.
was better for my needs (I also was holding out for second row captains seats arrangement). There is a "good" review of Acadia, MDX, & CX-9 in the June 2007 Motor Trend magazine. The CX-9 rated quite favorably, but still may not meet your "requirements". Happy hunting.
Oops, this one mentions the FS, we'll have to start on the next message.
What it actually turned into was a "let's bash the FS" more often than not with no personal experience from some of the poster's and then when anyone pursued or respectfully offered anything to the contrary of popular opinion it was seen as poor form. Not to say there weren't some zealots, me included at different times but it was a bit disappointing no one was willing to debate respectfully.
You seem to be the exception then because what seemed to be happening to me was a lambda lovefest. Offer anything to the contrary of their wonderfullness and you were branded a gang rapist or thread hijacker.
Well, since we "broke the counter", let me say that I think the FS is one of the best cars I've ever owned. I'm just interested in the other models as well.
Shall we reset the counter again?
Just to reiterate, how many posts can we get through without mentioning the Freestyle? :surprise: