I would suspect you could get a saturn serviced at your local chevy dealer, the only issue might be parts availability and having to wait a day or two for something specific...
"Yes- and did we forget to mention better gas mileage. Take the Freestyle,Acadia, and minivans. They are much larger than minivans, yet get better gas mileage, and minivans, over a foot longer, are often priced thousands less. Are we seeing my point?"
My bad- I meant to say the Honda Pilot, not minivans. That being said, The Acadia and the Freestyle get better gas mileage than the Pilot, while each is a foot longer.
There are quantifiable issues WRONG(fact) with larger and larger wheels being installed when all aspects of installing them are not addressed. Gee why can't I accelerate as fast as I used to, why has my mileage suffered, why can't I stop in the same distance I used to. I don't get it, I just put a set of rims on, why would that be such a problem. Chrome isn't the issue, size and weight are. That has nothing to do with being an opinion.
I see we're adding facts to our posts, now. But this is no different from saying why did you buy a Freestyle when you could have bought a less expensive minivan, with more room, and more power that gets better gas mileage? So I guess there are multiple things wrong with buying a FS, and all other crossovers. But you chose to go with the FS, and lose the space- for a (in some cases) larger vehicle, that gets worse mileage.
I've never argued for you to not buy what you want, all I've argued for is better solutions than what are presently provided by the manufacturers that are being driven by the consumer rather than being innovator's. I'm just a litte perplexed and tired of being told that success and good design leads to a vehicle that is hundreds of pounds heavier, has a bit more interior space, weighs more necessitating the need for more power, costs more and is less fuel efficient. Like I have said in the past, what have you proved.
Like I keep saying, you have choices, some are heavy,and some aren't. If you know what you want, you can get it all. And who care about a heavy vehicle. Like my comparison with the Acadia and Pilot, The bigger vehicle handles better, and gets much better gas mileage, not to mention, minivan space. No one is telling you improvements mean heavier vehicles. But in this case, it doesn't matter.
Your point? The gas mileage of some heavier vehicles with more power is still better than that of some samller vehicles with less power. That won't change if converted to any scale right now.
If you really want a lambda, then drive 30 miles to the closest selection. Not saying you do, but having to go to rural dealers isn't gonna help sales.
I had a dramatic experience years ago w/ domestic car, and the last one was the then-best seller, Taurus. Back then, they were really domestics. Ever since then, I switched to Japanese.
Married with children, and the mortgage of my bank, have to be pratical. My first 88 Camry, bought it at 118K miles, no problem till 160K when it's donated.
Latest CR doesn't recommend many Ford as Toyota. Maybe CR is more favor T.
This is what my neighbor jokes about, "there is no domestic or imports, when you buy a Toyota it's built in Ohio, a General (Motor) it's built at Mexico." :confuse:
regardless of what US manufacturer a bad experience years ago shouldn't apply to the same degree now and if you keep up with the press, other forums and news you will find no one is immune to failures, recalls and lemons.
As for CR that would be the last place I would look for advice in buying a car, but that's just my opinion....
And where are your facts supporting your most recent claims?
"But this is no different from saying why did you buy a Freestyle when you could have bought a less expensive minivan, with more room, and more power that gets better gas mileage? So I guess there are multiple things wrong with buying a FS, and all other crossovers"
I didn't say there wasn't a downside to my choice all I was pointing out was that there was MORE of a downside with the choice of some of the others that are being touted as the next great thing since toast using what you are considering logic.
"But you chose to go with the FS, and lose the space- for a (in some cases) larger vehicle, that gets worse mileage."
where are your facts to support this baseless claim.
I'll just short of guarantee there isn't a minivan out there that can get 33mpg out on the highway.
"If you know what you want, you can get it all"
No you can't, in my opinion, but where are your facts to support this claim.
"And who care about a heavy vehicle"
You should as any of the cuv's would be more fuel efficient and perform better than they presently do without having to schlep around the weight some of them do, Period.
"Like my comparison with the Acadia and Pilot, The bigger vehicle handles better, and gets much better gas mileage, not to mention, minivan space"
Like your "opinion" in you comparison with the lambda and the pilot. Where are your facts to support your assessment.
"minivan space"
Not quite, none of them do...
"No one is telling you improvements mean heavier vehicles. But in this case, it doesn't matter."
When the lambda's get touted as the most significant new vehicle and are heavier, less fuel efficient, and moderate handlers and performers you are saying improvements as far as GM goes means heavier vehicles. Their ONLY trump card is the packaging that allows the interior volume it does, other than that it's largely no different than their competition as the opinion of looks aren't fact based. You pay a significant premium for that space advantage, I'd argue as my OPINION the lambda's aren't the wunderkind they keep getting lauded as.
"But in this case, it doesn't matter"
again, where are your facts to support this claim???
And where are your facts supporting your most recent claims?
Right here.
I didn't say there wasn't a downside to my choice all I was pointing out was that there was MORE of a downside with the choice of some of the others that are being touted as the next great thing since toast using what you are considering logic.
give me some examples of this, and I'll give you some of how this statement isn't true.
where are your facts to support this baseless claim.
Were have you been? We've sorted this out. The FS has 86 cuft of cargo space. Minivans have 140. The CX9 has 100. THe Acadia has 117. The Pilot has 88. Fact enough?
I'll just short of guarantee there isn't a minivan out there that can get 33mpg out on the highway.
There isn't a midsized CUV INCLUDING the FS that can do it either. Even another FS owner is a little shocked at this statemet. But have you actually driven a minivan a long distance to find this out?
No you can't, in my opinion, but where are your facts to support this claim.
This is an oppinion. If your going to blindly copy my statements, put them in places where thay actually make sense. Are you saying you had to comprimise with your car. Maybe you should have gotten one that pleases you totally. They ARE out there.
You should as any of the cuv's would be more fuel efficient and perform better than they presently do without having to schlep around the weight some of them do, Period.
No I shouldn't, seeing that Vehicles like the lambdas and CX9 handle beter than Pilot with better mileage despite being heavier.
Not quite, none of them do...
True, but close, for a smaller vehicle.
When the lambda's get touted as the most significant new vehicle and are heavier, less fuel efficient, and moderate handlers and performers you are saying improvements as far as GM goes means heavier vehicles. Their ONLY trump card is the packaging that allows the interior volume it does, other than that it's largely no different than their competition as the opinion of looks aren't fact based. You pay a significant premium for that space advantage, I'd argue as my OPINION the lambda's aren't the wunderkind they keep getting lauded as.
When the lambdas are signifigcantly heavier than competitors, yet perform better, get better numbers, and trump all other competitors in passenger and cargo volume, something's up. That's what I call smart engineering. And we don't seem to be using styling as an example here. I'd argue my oppinion that, while there are nice competitors out there, the lambdas are the most well rounded CUV's out there. And, frankly, all they're cracked up to be. And if you don't want to pay premium price, the Saturn Outlook is priced just as low as all other competitors. And the other lambdas are priced pretty low, too.
again, where are your facts to support this claim???
You keep copying my fact statement and putting it in random places! Numbers? As I keep saying, the Lambdas are heavier, yet perfom better and get better gas mileage thn smaller competitors such as Pilot- so it doesn't matter.
Here are some numbers, so there is no future stumbling over them. Honda Odysses: Base price- 25 grand, EPA- 20 and 28. Dodge Grand Caravan: Base price- 21 grand, EPA- 19 and 26. Toyota Sienna: Base Price- 23 grand, EPA- 19 and 27 All Facts. You may say "well I still get way better than that in my Freestyle-33 on the highway. That's not an EPA number. So in these vans, you'll probably get 34-35 on the highway, and in a Tohoe, you'll get about 25. You must do some miracle driving.
So you've actually did the manual MPG calculation after filling up the tank to get the 33MPG, or did 33MPG just flash on the trip computer during a highway cruise? The best MPG I've had on the highway was 28MPG. The Odyssey can get pretty good highway MPG too because it will shut off half the cylinders on easy highway driving.
It's good to know. I'm off on a trip from Ohio to Colorado, then to California, and back to Ohio through Arizona. I figure I'll put 5000 miles on the car by the time the whole trip is done, so if I can get even 30MPG on the trip that would be great...we'll see.
BTW I've had my Freestyle for about 2 1/2 years and 45,000 miles. It's been a good car. There are some issues with the rear brakes, but I just put on some ceramic pads on the rear for $100, so it wasn't a big deal. I had to take it to the dealer once for a module recalibration, which was covered under warranty. I really like the CVT on the Freestyle because it's so smooth. The climate control system is great, with the separate rear AC with ceiling vents, as well as a separate floor heating vent for the 3rd row (I wonder if any other CUV has separate 3rd row floor heat vents because when it's cold, you want the heat blowing on your feet, not your head!). Power has been fine. I've used the cruise control going up the West Virginia mountains going 70mph full of people and stuff, and the Freestyle had no problems maintaining the speed.
On the other hand, it's not perfect. I wish it had better storage areas up front. My other car is a Honda Fit and there are a lot more places to put small things here and there. And the glove box on the Fit is bigger. Some of the interior plastic pieces feel sort of cheap on the Freestyle, but it's comfortable. The green dash LEDs really stink during the day. You just can't read the radio or clock or speedo.
Overall I'm happy with it. Right now I don't need anything bigger. There are four in our family, but in the summer we have a couple of relatives over, so we have 6 or 7 passengers during that time. It's good because you can still put 4 good size suitcases behind the 3rd row, and the space under the 3rd row is big too. I'll keep the Freestyle unless our family grows to 5 total, at which point I'll buy probably an Odyssey because three carseats in the 2nd row is too much, and it's a pain using the 3rd in any CUV on a regular basis. If the family size remains at 4, I'll keep the Freestyle for as many years as it keeps running well.
waiting for something other than your opinion and BTW, I'm being held to an all fact conversation it seems you're not quite as comfortable doing the same.
You offered this in a previous post,
"Are people stupid for paying 26 grand for an FS when they can get a minivan with much more space for a couple thousand less? What are YOU saying about yorself?"
why no offering of valid points or examples supporting your thoughtful claim? All I did was counter your intellect with this,
I didn't say there wasn't a downside to my choice all I was pointing out was that there was MORE of a downside with the choice of some of the others that are being touted as the next great thing since toast using what you are considering logic.
So I'd say you started it and if you want to debate it give up some of your wildly insightful examples you'd like to express...
"give me some examples of this, and I'll give you some of how this statement isn't true."
see above.
"Were have you been? We've sorted this out. The FS has 86 cuft of cargo space. Minivans have 140. The CX9 has 100. THe Acadia has 117. The Pilot has 88. Fact enough?"
the FACT is you are closer but still short, review the math and no matter how many times you look at it it will still be a FACT that they don't come close.
doubt my mpg all you want, I've done it, period, regardless of who doubts.
"If you know what you want, you can get it all"(albook) "No you can't, in my opinion, but where are your facts to support this claim. (freealfas)
still waiting for a cognisant response...
"This is an oppinion. If your going to blindly copy my statements, put them in places where thay actually make sense. Are you saying you had to comprimise with your car. Maybe you should have gotten one that pleases you totally. They ARE out there."
I'm not blindly copying, I'm just holding you to the same standard that you've required of this, ummmm, hmmmmm, debate and going point by point through your ummmm, thinking(being polite).
Considering I've been driving my purchase 18 months longer than any of "you" in the come late to the party crowd I'm quite happy with my automotive purchases and thanks for asking as your concern really warms my heart.(the metaphorical "you" again as you specifically may not even own one, intend to buy one, etc., etc. and are offering your candor just out of the need to be contrary)
"When the lambdas are signifigcantly heavier than competitors, yet perform better, get better numbers, and trump all other competitors in passenger and cargo volume, something's up. That's what I call smart engineering. And we don't seem to be using styling as an example here. I'd argue my oppinion that, while there are nice competitors out there, the lambdas are the most well rounded CUV's out there. And, frankly, all they're cracked up to be. And if you don't want to pay premium price, the Saturn Outlook is priced just as low as all other competitors. And the other lambdas are priced pretty low, too."
You might want to review the term "smart engineering" then as it really is NO CHALLENGE to make something heavier, at the expense of economy throw a bigger motor in it so it performs marginally better than the competition and sell it for more money because it's shiney and new. The lambda's trump all comers in the volume dept. other than that you can find other cuv's that do various things better. The rest of your verbage is YOUR OPINION, not facts like you keep crying for.
"You keep copying my fact statement and putting it in random places! Numbers?
there's nothing random about it, post up the numbers and make your point because other than that all you are blathering on about is your HUMBLE opinion.
"As I keep saying, the Lambdas are heavier, yet perfom better and get better gas mileage thn smaller competitors such as Pilot- so it doesn't matter."
Again with the OPINION... stop the madness the head needs to come out of the sand to allow oxygen to the brain or drink the purple koolaide already as you are starting to sound as vehement as some of those crazy FS owners around here. BTW the pilot is not the only lambda competitor if you haven't noticed.
That minor acceleration advantage it has over SOME of its competitors can be made up in reaction time so in the real world of driving these vehicles they are a performance match short of the mpg of one and space advantage of the other. I can't help but wonder though how much better it would perform in both acceleration and mpg with less weight to haul around though. Ohhhhh that's right, that doesn't matter because weight has NO BEARING on performance because albook said it doesn't.
"Here are some numbers, so there is no future stumbling over them. Honda Odysses: Base price- 25 grand, EPA- 20 and 28. Dodge Grand Caravan: Base price- 21 grand, EPA- 19 and 26. Toyota Sienna: Base Price- 23 grand, EPA- 19 and 27"
You've proved nothing yet again as at best your precious lambda at 18/26(gmc website) for a fwd factually matches some while being LESS than others when comparing EPA numbers as opposed to your opinion that it surpasses them all the while taking my miracle driving completely out of the equation.
Good luck with the mpg as you really need to pay attention to the throttle, I did it more as a game than anything to see what it could do.
Completely agree with the interior materials and really wish they had addressed this in the T-rex. Don't have the green light issue you do though. Had ours for just short of 2 years and have 19k with nothing other than the rear brakes which the dealer dealt with us on costing the same $100 yours did.
I think we'll have to stop the faint FS praise even if it is tempered with a little criticism as we don't want anyone thinking we're taking over the thread again...
>>The climate control system is great, with the separate rear AC with ceiling vents, as well as a separate floor heating vent for the 3rd row (I wonder if any other CUV has separate 3rd row floor heat vents because when it's cold, you want the heat blowing on your feet, not your head!).
The Buick Enclave/GMC Acadia also have rear AC with ceiling vents, as well as a separate floor heating vent for the 3rd row. I agree that this is a very nice feature. I have seen some other CUVs wihout good ventilation for the 3rd row, and have pretty much ruled them out of consideration for my next vehicle.
The best I have achieved is 33 MPG, all highway, in (moving) traffic. Average speed was around 60 MPH (varied from 50 to 70). However, my last cross country to Alqubuerque (800 miles) was at 80 MPH, and I only got 25.5 MPG.
The FS does well on the highway, but in town the best I can achieve is around 20 MPG, especially with the SoCal "Summer" blend of gas. Most of my fill-ups are about 70% city, and result in around 22 MPG. Not bad for a 4200 lb vehicle.
being from Europe i am used to much smaller cars. when our three kids were all three in car seats we had a 4 door VW Golf (Rabbit) and no problems on long holiday trips. we had a roof box installed but thats it. sure it was not easy to get the kids in and out but do-able (no, not out of the roof box, out of the back seats ). the next car was not much larger but had sliding doors which helped. only when we moved over to the US 2 years ago we got a really huge car, the Fresstyle. the kids dont need booster seats any more and are fine on the 2nd row bench seat. my wife hauls 6 kids to and/or from school each day and it works fine. the other mom has an Odi which is more roomy but i still would not trade. i test drove the Odi and Quest and other mini vans and althoug they do a great job they are just not much fun to drive. in 2005 there was no real alternative to the Freestyle, mainly because we really wanted the 2nd row bench. last year we drove from Houston to Florida, 2 weeks, 3000 miles. 4 adults and 3 kids (10,9,8 years old). we had full camping gear (air beds, 3 tents, 7 sleeping bags etc.) and quite a few bags. everything fitted no problem into the Freestyle and we had a great trip, nobody complained about the space and seating comfort and everyone at least once sat in the 3rd row seat (and i am 6'4").
power was no problem (how could it be with these low speed limits compared to the German highways...) and we got between 25 and 28mpg.
no, that's not another of those Freestyle raving posts. i just wanted to point out that everything is relative and complaining is so easy. it seems to me that many people are just demanding more and more without really having a "need" ... especially the lack of power statements seem like a joke to me. our cars in Europe had much less than half of the Freestyle "power" but speeds were so much higher there. try to merge on the highway when traffic is flowing at 100mph or more and the left lane is dominated by Mercedes, BMWs and Porsches flying by at 150mph... i really dont know for what i would need more power over here. acceleration seems to be oh so important here, from one red light to the next one...
Thanks also for reminding folks here that the FS is one very large vehicle. It weighs less certainly than the GM Lambdas, but small it ain't. We Americans are spoiled with cheap gas (I know, I know, but compare our per gallon cost to Europe or much of Asia), relatively open highways, and parking ramps all over the place. Otherwise, more people would discover how usable the Rabbit or Versa or A3 can be even for families.
We Americans are spoiled with cheap gas (I know, I know, but compare our per gallon cost to Europe or much of Asia), relatively open highways, and parking ramps all over the place.
My God-don't remind me! Why isn't the Highlander Hybrid in this post? That should get considered more!
"Are people stupid for paying 26 grand for an FS when they can get a minivan with much more space for a couple thousand less? What are YOU saying about yorself?"
Well, I am not really a fan of the Freestyle, but in the Memphis paper today the ad for a new 2007 Freestyle with DVD was $20,790. Not sure the exact equipment, but it is probably the bottom of the line. You could probably get the stripped mini van for a couple of thousand less but it just depends on what you want or need.
in 2005 there was no real alternative to the Freestyle, mainly because we really wanted the 2nd row bench Actually, the Toyota Sienna was offered with 3 individual seats in the middle row. It might be the only 8 seat van left out there.
Actually there was also the Buick Rendezvous and Honda Pilot. I wouldn't have gone for the Rendy because it was too awkward to be good looking. The Pilot probably would have held its own pretty well though. I have some friends that took a week and a half trip from Detroit to Orlando, with 3 adults and 3 kids, and they claim they had no complaints. But that's really packing it. With the Pilot, you can fold down one of the third row seats, and still stick two kids back there.
The FS is/was the better choice over the pilot because it was cheaper to buy and has significanly more room available behind an occupied 3rd row, 2nd/3rd row legroom and it gets better mileage per the epa, so really there was no comparison. Not to mention it weighs 400lbs more negating its hp advantage.
The rendevouz based on the aztek platform suffers some of the lingering affects of the ugly genes it inherited (opinion) and the lack of airbags was laughable in a family hauler. It also had less power desptite being a half liter larger.
You forgot the highlander & pacifica as other options available with a 3rd row. The problem with those were the same as the Pilot, weight, expense, poorer epa mpg, less room, with the addition of my not being comfortable in the driver's seat of the pacifica(test drove) but that point was my personal opinion.
"With the Pilot, you can fold down one of the third row seats, and still stick two kids back there"
Not legally as I think you only have 2 seatbelts from the pictures on the website, I wouldn't be party to that as one wouldn't have a belt then though, that wouldn't be safe. A pilot owner could verify this...
"Basically your floor just starts a foot or two lower."
Trot down to the Ford dealer and take a look at the FS. It also has a "deep well" behind the 3rd seat - it is about 14 inches, I think, or maybe 16. This is the space where the seats go when the 3rd row is folded.
It is not as big as an Odyssey, for example, but it is substantial.
The Pacifica wouldn't have worked for carstenb, as it doesn't offer a 2nd row bench with a third row. I'm not sure that the Pilot was more expensive than the FS, as the FS was new in 2005. And I think the Pilot has more cargo room overall- but that is to a vehicle that is a foot shorter. I would have taken FS though, because I really really like captains chairs. But you can seat 3 across third row in Pilot. It should be on the website.
The thing abou the Rendy was, it really could have been a nice vehicle. But It looked to awkard. What it did have aver all its competitors- and most full size SUV's, was cargo space. It's nothing more than amazing how a 186 inch CUV could have 108 cuft cargo space. And a real adult could sit in its third row, one that in numbers outdoes any other one discussed in this forum. I justed hated that cupholder thing in the middle of its one peice (another minus) 3rd row. Without that it could have sat 7 with captains. And GM should have made second row seats fold into/ onto the floor. But the ultra with the 3.6 liter V6 handled nicely. Though the lambdas are by far one of the best things GM has done in the last 5 years, All Gm would have had to do to make the Rendy a new hit would be make the exterior attractive, split the third row binch 60/40 (and take out that cupholder trash) upgrade the interior, and make the 3.6 more powerful yet more efficient. They could have even thrown the Enclave name on it and cloned it twice as they've done now. It would have been a hit.
"Yeah- and it doesn't exactly fold into the floor like a minivan, but like one."
I'm not exactly what the second half of your post means...
Actually, it olds into the floor exactly like a minivan, although in a different design. It reverses the entire seat, but the effect is precisely the same as my old Odyssey - the floor level is the same as in a minivan folding seat.
Actually, it olds into the floor exactly like a minivan, although in a different design. It reverses the entire seat, but the effect is precisely the same as my old Odyssey - the floor level is the same as in a minivan folding seat.
Actually, a sub floor comes up in the FS, whereas the floor level in front of the Odyssey third row doesn't change. It's complicated, but you have a freestyle so you probably sort of get what I'm saying. But they do both reverse.
You guys- quick! what are the benefits of the FS over the chevy van- besides gas mileage (company pays for). Trying to convince a friend to get FS instead of the van. Does it handle better? Running out of time!
Hello. I am wondering if anyone can explain how the measurements for 2nd row legroom and 3rd row legroom are taken for the vehicle specifications?
I have mostly been looking at a Mazda CX9 and GMC Acadia/Buick Enclave - mostly because I wanted to have the most usable 3rd row legroom. I briefly also looked at a Audio Q7, Acura MDX, and Cadillac SRX.
The Mazda CX9 and GMC Acadia/Buick Enclave are the longest vehicles - 10+ inches longer than the others, so it makes sense to me that they should have more 3rd row legroom, and possible more 2nd row legroom.
Experience tells me that numbers don't lie, but all liars use numbers! I see measurements listed for row legroom and 3rd row legroom on various websites and spec sheets. But I was wondering how they are actually measured?
For example, on vehix.com, the 3rd row legroom for an Enclave is listed as 33.2, the 3rd row legroom for an MDX is listed as 29.1 - so Enclave wins this matchup by ~4 inches.
Also for example, on vehix.com, the 2nd row legroom for an Enclave is listed as 36.9, the 2nd row legroom for an MDX is listed as 38.7 - - so MDX wins this matchup by ~2 inches.
So looking at these figures, one has more 2nd row legroom by a few inches, and one has more 3rd row legroom by a few inches. So that is basically a wash - no huge overall difference. Yet the Enclave is about 10 inches longer for wheelbase and for overall length.
Now I am just using the Enclave and the MDX in the above paragraphs as measurement examples, I am not trying to push one vehicle over the other - so please don't jump all over me for bashing one or the other :-)
Can anyone explain to me how the measurements are taken for for 2nd row legroom, 3rd row legroom? Is the seat in front pushed all the way in one direction, while the seat being measured moved all the way in another direction? Are both moved to their middle settings? Etc.
Why not just go look at the models you like and see for yourself? I have driven an Acadia and been in an Enclave and they do have lots of leg room in both the 2nd and 3rd rows, but the 2nd row seats do adjust. I am 6'4" with a 36" inseam and can fit in all three rows. I have not seen a Mazda yet as there are no dealers close. I have been in the Q7, MDX and SRX and their 3rd rows are not, IMO, useable by me.
The same legroom is not always the "same." If the seat is higher, then the front and back seats can actually be closer together and afford the same amount of measurable legroom. Back seat comfort is actually based on a number of factors, so the vehicle with the most standard measure legroom may not end up being the most comfortable or roomy-feeling. You need to try them.
Also, vehicle length and wheelbase are only roughly correlated with rear seat legroom. Look at how much legroom the 98" Suzuki SX4 has, or for that matter the Scion Xb. The Mazda CX-9 could have exactly the same interior room it does, and yet easily be a half foot shorter. Its styling dictates a relatively long front overhang that does nothing for interior room.
Yes, the #s are only a very rough guide, you have to sit in them to know. Example-new Xb listed with 4" less headroom than old, but sat in it, no difference (I'm 6'5", all in my torso).
You might want to read the new comparison test this month in Motor Trend Veracruz versus Lexus RX350. In case you can't guess, they picked the Veracruz over the Lexus.
I agree that you have to sit in them, because it's not just the number of inches of legroom but the shapes of the seats, the depth of the footwell, and other factors that contribute to your overall comfort.
I tried many of these and the Outlook, CX9, and Veracruz all have tolerable 3rd rows.
If you want true comfort and cargo space to boot, get a minivan.
If the 3rd row is secondary and you only need it in a pinch for kids, then the MDX and Tribeca are a bit more fun to drive than the bigger ones mentioned above, IMO.
In the MotorTrend article, the AWD Veracruz posted a 7.7 second 0-60 time which was .4 faster than their AWD CX-9 test and .5 faster than the AWD Acadia test. It also posted better slalom time and figure-8 time and a better skidpad than the RX-350 (mostly because of Toyota's completely intrusive stability control).
The RX350 was quicker at 6.7 seconds, but only got a hair over 17mpg on premium fuel through the tests. The Veracruz averaged a hair over 19mpg on regular.
That's about as quick as I suspected, given the new engine. I'm surprised about the poor fuel efficiency, though, and though it would be the other way around.
Comments
Since rural areas seem to be populated more by elderly people, does it follow that the remaining dealers in rural areas sell Buicks?
Or do we need to retire that old saw? (My 80 year old mother in law who lives in the rural UP switched from BMWs to Buicks 5 years ago, fwiw).
My bad- I meant to say the Honda Pilot, not minivans. That being said, The Acadia and the Freestyle get better gas mileage than the Pilot, while each is a foot longer.
There are quantifiable issues WRONG(fact) with larger and larger wheels being installed when all aspects of installing them are not addressed. Gee why can't I accelerate as fast as I used to, why has my mileage suffered, why can't I stop in the same distance I used to. I don't get it, I just put a set of rims on, why would that be such a problem. Chrome isn't the issue, size and weight are. That has nothing to do with being an opinion.
I see we're adding facts to our posts, now. But this is no different from saying why did you buy a Freestyle when you could have bought a less expensive minivan, with more room, and more power that gets better gas mileage? So I guess there are multiple things wrong with buying a FS, and all other crossovers. But you chose to go with the FS, and lose the space- for a (in some cases) larger vehicle, that gets worse mileage.
I've never argued for you to not buy what you want, all I've argued for is better solutions than what are presently provided by the manufacturers that are being driven by the consumer rather than being innovator's. I'm just a litte perplexed and tired of being told that success and good design leads to a vehicle that is hundreds of pounds heavier, has a bit more interior space, weighs more necessitating the need for more power, costs more and is less fuel efficient. Like I have said in the past, what have you proved.
Like I keep saying, you have choices, some are heavy,and some aren't. If you know what you want, you can get it all. And who care about a heavy vehicle. Like my comparison with the Acadia and Pilot, The bigger vehicle handles better, and gets much better gas mileage, not to mention, minivan space. No one is telling you improvements mean heavier vehicles. But in this case, it doesn't matter.
Married with children, and the mortgage of my bank, have to be pratical. My first 88 Camry, bought it at 118K miles, no problem till 160K when it's donated.
Latest CR doesn't recommend many Ford as Toyota. Maybe CR is more favor T.
This is what my neighbor jokes about, "there is no domestic or imports, when you buy a Toyota it's built in Ohio, a General (Motor) it's built at Mexico." :confuse:
As for CR that would be the last place I would look for advice in buying a car, but that's just my opinion....
And where are your facts supporting your most recent claims?
"But this is no different from saying why did you buy a Freestyle when you could have bought a less expensive minivan, with more room, and more power that gets better gas mileage? So I guess there are multiple things wrong with buying a FS, and all other crossovers"
I didn't say there wasn't a downside to my choice all I was pointing out was that there was MORE of a downside with the choice of some of the others that are being touted as the next great thing since toast using what you are considering logic.
"But you chose to go with the FS, and lose the space- for a (in some cases) larger vehicle, that gets worse mileage."
where are your facts to support this baseless claim.
I'll just short of guarantee there isn't a minivan out there that can get 33mpg out on the highway.
"If you know what you want, you can get it all"
No you can't, in my opinion, but where are your facts to support this claim.
"And who care about a heavy vehicle"
You should as any of the cuv's would be more fuel efficient and perform better than they presently do without having to schlep around the weight some of them do, Period.
"Like my comparison with the Acadia and Pilot, The bigger vehicle handles better, and gets much better gas mileage, not to mention, minivan space"
Like your "opinion" in you comparison with the lambda and the pilot. Where are your facts to support your assessment.
"minivan space"
Not quite, none of them do...
"No one is telling you improvements mean heavier vehicles. But in this case, it doesn't matter."
When the lambda's get touted as the most significant new vehicle and are heavier, less fuel efficient, and moderate handlers and performers you are saying improvements as far as GM goes means heavier vehicles. Their ONLY trump card is the packaging that allows the interior volume it does, other than that it's largely no different than their competition as the opinion of looks aren't fact based. You pay a significant premium for that space advantage, I'd argue as my OPINION the lambda's aren't the wunderkind they keep getting lauded as.
"But in this case, it doesn't matter"
again, where are your facts to support this claim???
You can get 33mpg with your Freestyle?
Right here.
I didn't say there wasn't a downside to my choice all I was pointing out was that there was MORE of a downside with the choice of some of the others that are being touted as the next great thing since toast using what you are considering logic.
give me some examples of this, and I'll give you some of how this statement isn't true.
where are your facts to support this baseless claim.
Were have you been? We've sorted this out. The FS has 86 cuft of cargo space. Minivans have 140. The CX9 has 100. THe Acadia has 117. The Pilot has 88. Fact enough?
I'll just short of guarantee there isn't a minivan out there that can get 33mpg out on the highway.
There isn't a midsized CUV INCLUDING the FS that can do it either. Even another FS owner is a little shocked at this statemet. But have you actually driven a minivan a long distance to find this out?
No you can't, in my opinion, but where are your facts to support this claim.
This is an oppinion. If your going to blindly copy my statements, put them in places where thay actually make sense. Are you saying you had to comprimise with your car. Maybe you should have gotten one that pleases you totally. They ARE out there.
You should as any of the cuv's would be more fuel efficient and perform better than they presently do without having to schlep around the weight some of them do, Period.
No I shouldn't, seeing that Vehicles like the lambdas and CX9 handle beter than Pilot with better mileage despite being heavier.
Not quite, none of them do...
True, but close, for a smaller vehicle.
When the lambda's get touted as the most significant new vehicle and are heavier, less fuel efficient, and moderate handlers and performers you are saying improvements as far as GM goes means heavier vehicles. Their ONLY trump card is the packaging that allows the interior volume it does, other than that it's largely no different than their competition as the opinion of looks aren't fact based. You pay a significant premium for that space advantage, I'd argue as my OPINION the lambda's aren't the wunderkind they keep getting lauded as.
When the lambdas are signifigcantly heavier than competitors, yet perform better, get better numbers, and trump all other competitors in passenger and cargo volume, something's up. That's what I call smart engineering. And we don't seem to be using styling as an example here. I'd argue my oppinion that, while there are nice competitors out there, the lambdas are the most well rounded CUV's out there. And, frankly, all they're cracked up to be. And if you don't want to pay premium price, the Saturn Outlook is priced just as low as all other competitors. And the other lambdas are priced pretty low, too.
again, where are your facts to support this claim???
You keep copying my fact statement and putting it in random places! Numbers? As I keep saying, the Lambdas are heavier, yet perfom better and get better gas mileage thn smaller competitors such as Pilot- so it doesn't matter.
Here are some numbers, so there is no future stumbling over them. Honda Odysses: Base price- 25 grand, EPA- 20 and 28. Dodge Grand Caravan: Base price- 21 grand, EPA- 19 and 26.
Toyota Sienna: Base Price- 23 grand, EPA- 19 and 27
All Facts. You may say "well I still get way better than that in my Freestyle-33 on the highway. That's not an EPA number. So in these vans, you'll probably get 34-35 on the highway, and in a Tohoe, you'll get about 25. You must do some miracle driving.
It doesn't happen often enough as I do more city than highway driving unfortunately when we use it.
only happened once as I don't get that many opportunities to make the drive like that.
similar happened again up to wisconsin and got 31mpg on a little longer trip.
BTW I've had my Freestyle for about 2 1/2 years and 45,000 miles. It's been a good car. There are some issues with the rear brakes, but I just put on some ceramic pads on the rear for $100, so it wasn't a big deal. I had to take it to the dealer once for a module recalibration, which was covered under warranty. I really like the CVT on the Freestyle because it's so smooth. The climate control system is great, with the separate rear AC with ceiling vents, as well as a separate floor heating vent for the 3rd row (I wonder if any other CUV has separate 3rd row floor heat vents because when it's cold, you want the heat blowing on your feet, not your head!). Power has been fine. I've used the cruise control going up the West Virginia mountains going 70mph full of people and stuff, and the Freestyle had no problems maintaining the speed.
On the other hand, it's not perfect. I wish it had better storage areas up front. My other car is a Honda Fit and there are a lot more places to put small things here and there. And the glove box on the Fit is bigger. Some of the interior plastic pieces feel sort of cheap on the Freestyle, but it's comfortable. The green dash LEDs really stink during the day. You just can't read the radio or clock or speedo.
Overall I'm happy with it. Right now I don't need anything bigger. There are four in our family, but in the summer we have a couple of relatives over, so we have 6 or 7 passengers during that time. It's good because you can still put 4 good size suitcases behind the 3rd row, and the space under the 3rd row is big too. I'll keep the Freestyle unless our family grows to 5 total, at which point I'll buy probably an Odyssey because three carseats in the 2nd row is too much, and it's a pain using the 3rd in any CUV on a regular basis. If the family size remains at 4, I'll keep the Freestyle for as many years as it keeps running well.
waiting for something other than your opinion and BTW, I'm being held to an all fact conversation it seems you're not quite as comfortable doing the same.
You offered this in a previous post,
"Are people stupid for paying 26 grand for an FS when they can get a minivan with much more space for a couple thousand less? What are YOU saying about yorself?"
why no offering of valid points or examples supporting your thoughtful claim? All I did was counter your intellect with this,
I didn't say there wasn't a downside to my choice all I was pointing out was that there was MORE of a downside with the choice of some of the others that are being touted as the next great thing since toast using what you are considering logic.
So I'd say you started it and if you want to debate it give up some of your wildly insightful examples you'd like to express...
"give me some examples of this, and I'll give you some of how this statement isn't true."
see above.
"Were have you been? We've sorted this out. The FS has 86 cuft of cargo space. Minivans have 140. The CX9 has 100. THe Acadia has 117. The Pilot has 88. Fact enough?"
the FACT is you are closer but still short, review the math and no matter how many times you look at it it will still be a FACT that they don't come close.
doubt my mpg all you want, I've done it, period, regardless of who doubts.
"If you know what you want, you can get it all"(albook)
"No you can't, in my opinion, but where are your facts to support this claim. (freealfas)
still waiting for a cognisant response...
"This is an oppinion. If your going to blindly copy my statements, put them in places where thay actually make sense. Are you saying you had to comprimise with your car. Maybe you should have gotten one that pleases you totally. They ARE out there."
I'm not blindly copying, I'm just holding you to the same standard that you've required of this, ummmm, hmmmmm, debate and going point by point through your ummmm, thinking(being polite).
Considering I've been driving my purchase 18 months longer than any of "you" in the come late to the party crowd I'm quite happy with my automotive purchases and thanks for asking as your concern really warms my heart.(the metaphorical "you" again as you specifically may not even own one, intend to buy one, etc., etc. and are offering your candor just out of the need to be contrary)
"When the lambdas are signifigcantly heavier than competitors, yet perform better, get better numbers, and trump all other competitors in passenger and cargo volume, something's up. That's what I call smart engineering. And we don't seem to be using styling as an example here. I'd argue my oppinion that, while there are nice competitors out there, the lambdas are the most well rounded CUV's out there. And, frankly, all they're cracked up to be. And if you don't want to pay premium price, the Saturn Outlook is priced just as low as all other competitors. And the other lambdas are priced pretty low, too."
You might want to review the term "smart engineering" then as it really is NO CHALLENGE to make something heavier, at the expense of economy throw a bigger motor in it so it performs marginally better than the competition and sell it for more money because it's shiney and new. The lambda's trump all comers in the volume dept. other than that you can find other cuv's that do various things better. The rest of your verbage is YOUR OPINION, not facts like you keep crying for.
"You keep copying my fact statement and putting it in random places! Numbers?
there's nothing random about it, post up the numbers and make your point because other than that all you are blathering on about is your HUMBLE opinion.
"As I keep saying, the Lambdas are heavier, yet perfom better and get better gas mileage thn smaller competitors such as Pilot- so it doesn't matter."
Again with the OPINION... stop the madness the head needs to come out of the sand to allow oxygen to the brain or drink the purple koolaide already as you are starting to sound as vehement as some of those crazy FS owners around here. BTW the pilot is not the only lambda competitor if you haven't noticed.
That minor acceleration advantage it has over SOME of its competitors can be made up in reaction time so in the real world of driving these vehicles they are a performance match short of the mpg of one and space advantage of the other. I can't help but wonder though how much better it would perform in both acceleration and mpg with less weight to haul around though. Ohhhhh that's right, that doesn't matter because weight has NO BEARING on performance because albook said it doesn't.
"Here are some numbers, so there is no future stumbling over them. Honda Odysses: Base price- 25 grand, EPA- 20 and 28. Dodge Grand Caravan: Base price- 21 grand, EPA- 19 and 26.
Toyota Sienna: Base Price- 23 grand, EPA- 19 and 27"
You've proved nothing yet again as at best your precious lambda at 18/26(gmc website) for a fwd factually matches some while being LESS than others when comparing EPA numbers as opposed to your opinion that it surpasses them all the while taking my miracle driving completely out of the equation.
Completely agree with the interior materials and really wish they had addressed this in the T-rex. Don't have the green light issue you do though. Had ours for just short of 2 years and have 19k with nothing other than the rear brakes which the dealer dealt with us on costing the same $100 yours did.
I think we'll have to stop the faint FS praise even if it is tempered with a little criticism as we don't want anyone thinking we're taking over the thread again...
just trying to play nicely...
The Buick Enclave/GMC Acadia also have rear AC with ceiling vents, as well as a separate floor heating vent for the 3rd row. I agree that this is a very nice feature. I have seen some other CUVs wihout good ventilation for the 3rd row, and have pretty much ruled them out of consideration for my next vehicle.
The best I have achieved is 33 MPG, all highway, in (moving) traffic. Average speed was around 60 MPH (varied from 50 to 70). However, my last cross country to Alqubuerque (800 miles) was at 80 MPH, and I only got 25.5 MPG.
The FS does well on the highway, but in town the best I can achieve is around 20 MPG, especially with the SoCal "Summer" blend of gas. Most of my fill-ups are about 70% city, and result in around 22 MPG. Not bad for a 4200 lb vehicle.
my wife hauls 6 kids to and/or from school each day and it works fine. the other mom has an Odi which is more roomy but i still would not trade. i test drove the Odi and Quest and other mini vans and althoug they do a great job they are just not much fun to drive. in 2005 there was no real alternative to the Freestyle, mainly because we really wanted the 2nd row bench.
last year we drove from Houston to Florida, 2 weeks, 3000 miles. 4 adults and 3 kids (10,9,8 years old). we had full camping gear (air beds, 3 tents, 7 sleeping bags etc.) and quite a few bags. everything fitted no problem into the Freestyle and we had a great trip, nobody complained about the space and seating comfort and everyone at least once sat in the 3rd row seat (and i am 6'4").
power was no problem (how could it be with these low speed limits compared to the German highways...) and we got between 25 and 28mpg.
no, that's not another of those Freestyle raving posts. i just wanted to point out that everything is relative and complaining is so easy. it seems to me that many people are just demanding more and more without really having a "need" ... especially the lack of power statements seem like a joke to me. our cars in Europe had much less than half of the Freestyle "power" but speeds were so much higher there. try to merge on the highway when traffic is flowing at 100mph or more and the left lane is dominated by Mercedes, BMWs and Porsches flying by at 150mph... i really dont know for what i would need more power over here. acceleration seems to be oh so important here, from one red light to the next one...
Carsten
cheers and safe driving...
Why are we giving vehicles silly names. It's really immature.
My God-don't remind me! Why isn't the Highlander Hybrid in this post? That should get considered more!
Well, I am not really a fan of the Freestyle, but in the Memphis paper today the ad for a new 2007 Freestyle with DVD was $20,790. Not sure the exact equipment, but it is probably the bottom of the line. You could probably get the stripped mini van for a couple of thousand less but it just depends on what you want or need.
You may have exceeding the payload limit, though.
in 2005 there was no real alternative to the Freestyle, mainly because we really wanted the 2nd row bench
Actually, the Toyota Sienna was offered with 3 individual seats in the middle row. It might be the only 8 seat van left out there.
Actually, the Toyota Sienna was offered with 3 individual seats in the middle row. It might be the only 8 seat van left out there.
Actually there was also the Buick Rendezvous and Honda Pilot. I wouldn't have gone for the Rendy because it was too awkward to be good looking. The Pilot probably would have held its own pretty well though. I have some friends that took a week and a half trip from Detroit to Orlando, with 3 adults and 3 kids, and they claim they had no complaints. But that's really packing it. With the Pilot, you can fold down one of the third row seats, and still stick two kids back there.
Basically your floor just starts a foot or two lower.
The FS is/was the better choice over the pilot because it was cheaper to buy and has significanly more room available behind an occupied 3rd row, 2nd/3rd row legroom and it gets better mileage per the epa, so really there was no comparison. Not to mention it weighs 400lbs more negating its hp advantage.
The rendevouz based on the aztek platform suffers some of the lingering affects of the ugly genes it inherited (opinion) and the lack of airbags was laughable in a family hauler. It also had less power desptite being a half liter larger.
You forgot the highlander & pacifica as other options available with a 3rd row. The problem with those were the same as the Pilot, weight, expense, poorer epa mpg, less room, with the addition of my not being comfortable in the driver's seat of the pacifica(test drove) but that point was my personal opinion.
"With the Pilot, you can fold down one of the third row seats, and still stick two kids back there"
Not legally as I think you only have 2 seatbelts from the pictures on the website, I wouldn't be party to that as one wouldn't have a belt then though, that wouldn't be safe. A pilot owner could verify this...
Trot down to the Ford dealer and take a look at the FS. It also has a "deep well" behind the 3rd seat - it is about 14 inches, I think, or maybe 16. This is the space where the seats go when the 3rd row is folded.
It is not as big as an Odyssey, for example, but it is substantial.
The thing abou the Rendy was, it really could have been a nice vehicle. But It looked to awkard. What it did have aver all its competitors- and most full size SUV's, was cargo space. It's nothing more than amazing how a 186 inch CUV could have 108 cuft cargo space. And a real adult could sit in its third row, one that in numbers outdoes any other one discussed in this forum. I justed hated that cupholder thing in the middle of its one peice (another minus) 3rd row. Without that it could have sat 7 with captains. And GM should have made second row seats fold into/ onto the floor. But the ultra with the 3.6 liter V6 handled nicely. Though the lambdas are by far one of the best things GM has done in the last 5 years, All Gm would have had to do to make the Rendy a new hit would be make the exterior attractive, split the third row binch 60/40 (and take out that cupholder trash) upgrade the interior, and make the 3.6 more powerful yet more efficient. They could have even thrown the Enclave name on it and cloned it twice as they've done now. It would have been a hit.
Yeah- and it doesn't exactly fold into the floor like a minivan, but like one.
I'm not exactly what the second half of your post means...
Actually, it olds into the floor exactly like a minivan, although in a different design. It reverses the entire seat, but the effect is precisely the same as my old Odyssey - the floor level is the same as in a minivan folding seat.
Actually, a sub floor comes up in the FS, whereas the floor level in front of the Odyssey third row doesn't change. It's complicated, but you have a freestyle so you probably sort of get what I'm saying. But they do both reverse.
I have mostly been looking at a Mazda CX9 and GMC Acadia/Buick Enclave - mostly because I wanted to have the most usable 3rd row legroom. I briefly also looked at a Audio Q7, Acura MDX, and Cadillac SRX.
The Mazda CX9 and GMC Acadia/Buick Enclave are the longest vehicles - 10+ inches longer than the others, so it makes sense to me that they should have more 3rd row legroom, and possible more 2nd row legroom.
Experience tells me that numbers don't lie, but all liars use numbers! I see measurements listed for row legroom and 3rd row legroom on various websites and spec sheets. But I was wondering how they are actually measured?
For example, on vehix.com, the 3rd row legroom for an Enclave is listed as 33.2, the 3rd row legroom for an MDX is listed as 29.1 - so Enclave wins this matchup by ~4 inches.
Also for example, on vehix.com, the 2nd row legroom for an Enclave is listed as 36.9, the 2nd row legroom for an MDX is listed as 38.7 - - so MDX wins this matchup by ~2 inches.
So looking at these figures, one has more 2nd row legroom by a few inches, and one has more 3rd row legroom by a few inches. So that is basically a wash - no huge overall difference. Yet the Enclave is about 10 inches longer for wheelbase and for overall length.
Now I am just using the Enclave and the MDX in the above paragraphs as measurement examples, I am not trying to push one vehicle over the other - so please don't jump all over me for bashing one or the other :-)
Can anyone explain to me how the measurements are taken for for 2nd row legroom, 3rd row legroom? Is the seat in front pushed all the way in one direction, while the seat being measured moved all the way in another direction? Are both moved to their middle settings? Etc.
Thanks in advance.
Also, vehicle length and wheelbase are only roughly correlated with rear seat legroom. Look at how much legroom the 98" Suzuki SX4 has, or for that matter the Scion Xb. The Mazda CX-9 could have exactly the same interior room it does, and yet easily be a half foot shorter. Its styling dictates a relatively long front overhang that does nothing for interior room.
I tried many of these and the Outlook, CX9, and Veracruz all have tolerable 3rd rows.
If you want true comfort and cargo space to boot, get a minivan.
If the 3rd row is secondary and you only need it in a pinch for kids, then the MDX and Tribeca are a bit more fun to drive than the bigger ones mentioned above, IMO.
Also, what was their recorded MPG. That's where I'd be concerned about the Hyundai 3.8l.