You can never deny what's real and works for you... If I needed it to fit the stroller or anything else specific... I'd think twice... fortunately my kids are 6 -13 and 16 ... so the size to fit "them" was more important than the rest... when more's needed... like in a house if it can be done... we move to the roof... I'm not quite buying that a van ( and we just got outta our MPV for the CX-9 ) does what this does... either way... it's always personal fit... that matters...
I couldn't fit a twin-stroller that fits in the trunk of my Accord Coupe
Well you have to compare correctly here: the Accord doesn't have third row seating, so the real comparison would be to fold down the 3rd row seats in the CX-9 and then try to fit a stroller. Unless, of course, you actually meant that you couldn't fit a stroller with the 3rd row seats down.
As for the DVD, people are talking about a built-in DVD in the headrests, which can be installed by Mazda dealers I believe, so no hanging straps or cords. This gives you the option to watch 2 different movies at once, which is nice with 2 kids.
so the real comparison would be to fold down the 3rd row seats in the CX-9 and then try to fit a stroller.
If I was to do the real comparison and fold down the 3rd row seat to fit the stroller, then there would be no point in buying something weighting 2 tons and measuring 17 feet in length.
I'm not quite buying that a van ( and we just got outta our MPV for the CX-9 ) does what this does
If you mean you are not sure a minivan can fit two strollers in the trunk with the 3rd row seats up, they will. The MPV's are smaller than other minivans (and the CX-9) by a whole foot. The trunk of a Honda Odissey gulped the two strollers without effort (the twin-stroller nicely slotted in the space opened when the 3rd row is up.)
To be fair, the installers at Circuit City (I spoke mostly with them rather than the salesman) told me the RES installation is much harder when there is a moonroof in the way. Not impossible, just harder.
Another thing is the light source behind the screen might be distracting to the kids watching the movie, unless you draw the shade, at least.
Obviously, competitors have overcome those issues and offer both.
the headrests. It's actually a much better situation since the rearview mirror is not blocked. As for your comments about competitors, blah, blah, blah...I think the CX-9 is meant to be a stylish and sporty-handling alternative to the mini-van. There are compromises in all designs. In the case of the lamdas, they handle no better than a minivan. If handling is important to a buyer, they might say that trait is an engineering flaw. I'm one of those buyers.
If you talk to them again, they will also tell you that there is no way to fit it to ceiling of a CX-9 on an angle that allows people in the 2nd row to see it.
And I would suspect the warranty would be void the moment one of them touched the wiring harness to integrate the monitors into the vehicle's power system.
Maybe Mazda should start offering headrest DVD's as an optional equipment. They provide better viewing than units mounted under the ceiling. If people in the 3rd row also want to watch whatever the 2nd row is watching, owners can just buy/rent an extra copy of all their DVD's and hand the passenger a $90 portable unit to watch on their laps.
My engineering comment was about Mazda designers not being able to fit both a DVD-player or a moonroof in the car at the same time.
Yes, people can go for after-market parts and maybe keep their warranty, have an extra wire here or there, etc.
I definitely agree with CX-9 being stylish; there is nothing better looking out there in this segment (not including offerings north of 50K).
In the case of the lamdas, they handle no better than a minivan.
I doubt anyone in this thread have or ever will drive any of these vehicles at their limits, so that I don't see the point. Under normal driving conditions, a test-drive on an Odyssey showed little difference in terms of pitch/dive/roll, if any.
I love that, people buy CUV's because they handle...
" If handling is important to a buyer" - then you should go buy a station wagon which has a good percentage of the utility of a CUV, infinitely better handling, and gets better mileage...I'm one of THOSE buyers as I have both and then of course there is the track toy, so who are we kidding.
And the CX gives up useful space for occupant comfort and the ability to carry stuff behind an occupied 3rd row for faux handling and looks, I'd argue that to be a bit of a flaw as well.
but the exercise can be blah, blah, blahed about all of them...
Don't you know that we all autocross and race our cars while we have kids in the vehicle going to the grocery store or on vacation. I would sacrifice comfort and space in my family hauler for the ability to have .0001 better skid pad number because it helps out so much in stop and go freeway traffic.
I'm going the the "PINKS" CUV grudge match sponsored by edmunds so I guess I'll see you there. I love the smell of 100octane race fuel in the morning...
just putting an extra bicycle chain in my CVT to take advantage of all of the extra HP I'm making with the ebay speed parts I've bought lately and the Nitrous I have hidden in the toddler car seat...ooops did I just let that out??? there goes my negotiation secrets...
If I was to do the real comparison and fold down the 3rd row seat to fit the stroller, then there would be no point in buying something weighting 2 tons and measuring 17 feet in length.
But there is a point to buying such a behemoth: for the occasional 3rd row use! I have 2 kids, and we'll be using that 3rd row only on occasion (typically when family/friends come over and we want to take only one car). So for the most part the 3rd row will always be folded over, but it'll be very convenient when used.
Minivans are fine and dandy if you plan on keeping that 3rd row up at all times. In my case, I can't justify a minivans with only 2 kids.
I have seen bean-counters affect things like the quality of the materials used on a car, but not the internal layout of the vehicle.
If anything, the bean-counters would have preferred to give buyers the option to spend more beans on their CX-9, buying *both* the moonroof and the DVD. I am pretty sure the people trading their minivans for something in this market segment will go for both options most of the time.
I recently purchased a 2007 Hyundai Santa Fe SE. One of the new GM crossovers would have been completely out of my budget because they cost more than I can afford right now. (Plus the Hyundai Santa Fe is so sweet! Reading reviews of the Enclave, and even looking at the pictures...they look so much alike in pictures) The reviews both focus on how quite they both are and how smooth they ride.
However, I am an American, and I am very glad to hear all the good things about these new GM crossovers (Yes I know, Made in America is not necessarily made in the USA, it could also mean Canada, Mexico etc.) Even my Hyundai was actually assembled in the U.S.
I am just glad to see American car manufacturers getting it right. I have never owned a GM vehicle before (My previous American vehicles have been Fords) but in 9 years or so when I am getting ready to trade in the Hyundai I would be glad to be able to buy American.
I also want to add in that I also like the New Silverado, and if I were buying a full size truck that is what I would buy, forget the new Tundra, it is almost as ugly as the Honda Ridgeline.
I have also heard great things about the new truck based SUVs, when Consumer Reports gives a favorable review to a new American vehicle and gives it an anticipated good rating on reliability you know GM is doing something right!
Great job GM on your large Trucks/CUVs/SUVs!
Now do something about your cars (other than Cadillac which is already doing great!)
I've 3 kids and couldn't justify the minivan..lol... we traded our for the CX(y)9. With the flexiblities of the folding seats in both rear rows... there's plenny space to use... Hard to argue with stuffing 6 teenaged boys and their skateboards to the park when needed... or... flipping down a seat to load 5+ large luggage bags on the way to the airport... all while "handling" the twisties with style and smile... who wants a wagon when you can have more... who wants a van when you can do the same and then some... prefferences are like style... shifting constantly
The CX-9 is no 2007 MDX, but it handles pretty darn good for such a large vehicle. As for ride...I'm apparently not that old yet cause I don't like a soft suspension...and the CX-9 is hardly rough. I'd call it firm.
Stuffing is the operative word in that comment of yours as I suspect you don't spend much time in the 3rd row and you are kiding yourself if you think you can do as much with the CX or any CUV for that matter as a minivan...
As for the wagon, they are probably all that you/most people really need a larger percentage of the time than you think and as noted will provide a better driving experience every time. How many times do you/people really load up a CUV or a mini to the point a wagon wouldn't do the job??? sort of like the 5' tall blonde getting out of the suburban for a trip to get a single gallon of milk...
or there wouldn't be several good handling choices out there right now.
I'm getting the feeling that in addition to the several Hyundai salesmen and couple of Freestyle apologists, this board is a bunch of old guys who should REALLY should be buying minivans. Those individuals obviously care nothing about the drive, but simply want to keep the kids quite on the trip while they set the cruise control and motor down the interstate...so why deal with any of the "negatives" of CUV's? Heck, if I was one of those guys, I'd by a Sienna and pick up a couple MPGs.
As a fellow American, I'm not sure the point of your post because if you are going to wrap yourself in the flag as a patriot you would have realized that indeed there were American CUV options that were comparable in price to the Korean based manufacturer you bought from.
But thanks for this priceless piece of information;
"when Consumer Reports gives a favorable review to a new American vehicle and gives it an anticipated good rating on reliability you know GM is doing something right"
"anticipated good rating" that's laughable. It's bad enough people use CR for advice on automotive purchases thinking their data base is representitive but to make a purchase based on speculation that because they think something is going to be good is the best one I've heard in a long time.
"freestyle apologist" & "Those individuals obviously care nothing about the drive" wow, I and a few others around here thought I thought pretty highly of my own opinion. I think you may be taking over that mantle.
To kid yourself that a 4500lb CUV "handles" is silly. The point of a CUV is to get people and stuff safely from one point to another. Driving satisfaction while needing competance to do this is really a LONG WAY from something that could be argued to "handle" with any "performance" connotation. I drive my track toy for when I want to drive something that "handles" and when I want to get my family from one place to another with competant handling and safety I hop in the FS or wagon which handles a whole lot better than any CUV.
BTW - There's really nothing to apologize for with the purchase of a FS.
"Heck, if I was one of those guys, I'd by a Sienna and pick up a couple MPGs"
Newsflash - you are one of those guys, you are experiencing the same denial the rest of us CUV buyers are, we want better mpg and don't want to be seen in a minivan and need to carry stuff/people periodically.
I bet you got the 20's as well, didn't you??? Chrome I'm thinking... yeah, concerned about handling....
Minivans are fine and dandy if you plan on keeping that 3rd row up at all times. In my case, I can't justify a minivans with only 2 kids.
I am getting to that conclusion as well. The CX-9 seems to be more of a short-range 7-seater (assuming no young kids and their respective strollers) or long-range 6-seater.
I'll try a borrowed lighter-weight stroller on the CX-9. Somehow the Saturn Outlook is looking like the better option every day. It doesn't look as good as the CX-9 and is not as roomy as the Odyssey, but it splits their different between style and utility.
Shoot me for saying it but our FS is significantly lighter than the lambda's, better real world mileage, are a screaming deal to buy and are a good alternative as they have a nice amount of space behind an occupied 3rd row. We keep our bugaboo standing up there behind one 3rd row seat and you still have a lot of room left behind the second 3rd row seat for other things provided they are up.
I'm getting the feeling that in addition to the several Hyundai salesmen and couple of Freestyle apologists, this board is a bunch of old guys who should REALLY should be buying minivans.
Last time I checked I was well under 40, didn't work for Hyundai and had two Japanese cars sitting on the garage. If it wasn't for a ground-clearance problem with the Honda Odyssey while entering my driveway when fully loaded, I would buy one.
What turned me off on the Odyssey competitors were the interiors, not the exterior. They have slightly better ground clearance, and will enter our garage, but their interior is either dated (Chrysler) or look dated (Sienna.) If I am going to shell out 35K on a car, I wan't to have a least some satisfaction when I step into it.
Next (and last) stop were the CUVs. My wife will not set her foot on a Ford after two horrible experiences with past models (8 recalls on her old Focus + 1 one in the glove box when we traded it in at a small fraction of its original price).
Next stop on my shopping list for 3 rows of seating: skip Ford FS (wife black-ball, not my call) , skip GMC Acadia (wife black-ball, can't drive something wearing the 'professional grade' badge) , skip Buick Enclave (too pricey, too overwrought) , skip Toyota Highlander (trunk too cramped) , skip Honda Pilot (trunk too cramped) , skip all Germans (too pricey and not better on space) , skip Hyundai SantaFe (glove compartment bigger than the trunk) have not checked the SantaCruz, but maybe should (MotorTrend says it is better than a Lexus RX350).
stop at Mazda, find a nice vehicle with some compromises that I unfortunately can't make (if it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit), move on.
I am now torn between the Sienna utility vs. the Outlook interior. The Sienna will definitely hold its value better than the Outlook. Once you muscle past the Saturn badge, the Outlook is a fine vehicle, with an interior that looks better than anything in its class barring the CX-9 (I think they look equally good) .
The Outlook feels (and is) heavier but much more comfortable. The engine is...gasp...more refined too. Honda V6 smooth (and I drive a Honda V6.) I never thought I would call a GM vehicle well engineered, but there you have it, it is.
That is a non sequitur. Old guys generally do not have the problem of having to keep the kids quiet on a trip because their kids are all grown up and on their own.
This old guy of 51 is glad to have the RSES in his CX-9 to keep his 9yo daughter happy on those long trips... I also like the "handling and firm ride" of the CX-9 much better than the truck it replaced, although I admit an MX6 Sportwagon would have been more fun to drive (wife said it was too small for our needs, and she was probably right) It's been great for towing my sailboat, hauling the canoes, and loading up my r/c planes whenever I get the time (which isn't much nowadays). I'd say if you want a wagon, minivan, or CUV, get what appeals most to how you'll plan to use it...
With a 9 year old daughter. We went with the Veracruz for a number of reasons. Roominess, price, warranty and styling were primary. It's turned out to be very comfortable. Just hauled a bunch of kids around last night and all were very impressed with the room, especially in the 3rd row. At first I thought the seats a bit firm, but now that I'm used to them I'm glad they are firm. Should be much better on a long trip. BTW, first tank of gas gave us 18.6 mpg in 50/50 city/hwy driving. I'm happy with that. So far no detectable down side.
Shoot me for saying it but our FS is significantly lighter than the lambda's, better real world mileage, are a screaming deal to buy and are a good alternative as they have a nice amount of space behind an occupied 3rd row. We keep our bugaboo standing up there behind one 3rd row seat and you still have a lot of room left behind the second 3rd row seat for other things provided they are up.
your thoughts and stroller may vary... "
The OP was commenting on Cx-9 vs Outlook vs Minivan. You interject with the virtues of the Freestyle. You have done this several times before, where someone was asking about cars x, y and z, clearly defined in their list, and you mention the Freestyle. If the discussion is about the Freestyle, then fine. But it really doesn't need to be brought up when people are focused elsewhere. Just leads to the bickering here that always veers off path
This is why the term "Freestyle apologist" is put forth here.
Wold you be posting to someone else around here who may be a clear VC(insert any other CUV here) fan if he did the same thing and offered their opinion and feel a need to dress them down for their post, I doubt it.
But you are allowed to offer your suggestions in a previous post freely to someone not considering what you thought they should and not be termed an apologist;
"Cant answer your FS question, but why on earth would he be looking at an almost extinct Uplander with no fold in the floor seating? If he's a minivan guy, and it sounds like he's looking for a low price, how about the Kia or DCX vans?"
That post was "focused elsewhere" and you thought enough of your opinion to redirect them to something else that might serve their needs. I suggest you take you own suggestion and do something unpleasant with it as all I was doing was politely offering an option the OP may not have thought of in light of some of the shortcomings of the list of vehicles he was considering. If you read further after my post the OP offered his thoughts for not considering any number of the options including the FS, did I push my point, no, did I bring it up again, no, the OP is doing his homework and will buy whatever he wants, I could care less as I just threw it out there.
You can get over the "apologist" high horse as the superiority complex of those that look down their nose at the FS is more than a little old, shortsighted, unfounded and painfully predictable. It's a solid effort that came to market 2 years BEFORE all of the current crop you are so fond of got here.
why don't you let the moderator's do the moderating around here...
I'm still in the market between a CX-9 and an Outlook.
I spent the weekend with an Outlook XR AWD(great Saturn policy, other manufactures should copy) .
It averaged 16 mpg, but probably would get 17-18 on the FWD I really wanted.
Kudos for GM engineering on the powertrain and suspension.It has a well-behaved suspension upon encountering holes, ridges and bumps on the pavement. When you brake it hard, it doesn't dive 6 inches and bounces 3 times on its way back.
The engine and the transmission are masterpieces, although the heavy weight will send the transmission hunting between 4th and 6th gear on long straightways with some inclination and the auto-pilot set to 65mph.
The interior is minivan big and pleasing with soft-padding everywhere your elbows touch. An unforgivable letdown is the steering wheel and all buttons mounted to it. First of all, you don't put your emblem in plastic faux-aluminum in the middle of the steering wheel; you use real aluminum. Second, you sweat the button tactile feel until they feel as if they are milled out of steel and not lightweight hollow plastic (volume adjustment.) Any $100 stereo will provide a more substantial feel. Even more unthinkable, the same switchgear is applied unchanged to its upscale cousin, the Enclave.
Everything else makes for a great vehicle.
I am driving a CX-9 again this weekend, this time demanding for a 2 hour drive without the salesman pestering me on the passenger seat.
I want it to win me over because I want to buy something as small as light as I possibly need. I talked my wife into getting a smaller stroller for the twins, which will fit the trunk. They are already 2 and half year old and mostly use the bigger stroller when we go out on park walks, which I can use our other car for (we are probably keeping the Murano although it would also fit in the trunk of a Honda Accord coupe). Yes, people will tell me I could just lower the 3rd row, but the CX-9 would be the family hauler, with a baby car-seat in the second row and two booster seats permanently mounted on the 3rd row (yes, the baby doesn't go for walks because I can't push 2 strollers at the same time :-)
The oddly mutually exclusive optional packages are still seriously getting in the way: (1) I cannot have moonroof and rear-entertaining at the same time, (2) if I want Xenon headlights or fog lights I need to go for the GT model and its uncomfortable 20" wheels and low-profile tires, (3) can't combine different interior leather colors with exterior colors, etc.
You can change the lights on the cx-9 and you could go for headrest dvds both as after thoughts... "if" all else were equal... as a cx-9 owner... admittedly.. .the outlook is very interesting... I have a gt model... and personaly realy like the larger rims... that give a nice feel to it with the awd. Either way I don't think you can go wrong... ( tho I'm bias towards the cx-9 obviously... )
It sounds like the Outlook might be your best bet after all, although I'm also admittedly biased towards the CX9. One thing to check on the CX-9 if you get a chance is the air pressure in the 20" tires. When we first got ours I thought the ride was also "twitchy" and harsh. Once I lowered the pressure in the tires from 40psi to 32psi (34psi is recommended) it was much more comfortable. Good Luck!
yes... adding after market HID lights... and the fog lights are available as an accessory from Mazda... re: tire pressure... just be careful not to alarm the TPS system. but that's deffinately a means of working with your personal settings...
I couldn't find the fog lights as a factory-installed accessory from Mazda, maybe some dealers will do it, but it will certainly not be as well integrated into the instrument cluster.
These kits are not street legal for use on public roads as they are. As a result, we officially endorse the kit for exhibition and off-road use and will only sell the kit to be used for these purposes. We are not responsible for customers who violate the terms of sale in which they will assume all responsibilities for any unauthorized or unintended use other than exhibition or off-road use.
Even if an overzealous dealer doesn't hand you to local authorities (a.k.a never argue the service manager or bicker over mysterious 'shop-supply' charges,) you can forget about the factory warranty as the installation process involves drilling a couple of holes.
That said, I'll be shooting for the GT and the minimum recommended pressure on each tire.
I've found the fog lights listed on our site: http://www.marinmazda.net OR Mazdausa.com part number TD11 V7 220F and TD11 V7 247F PZ ( example for black color. ) Personaly I'd not use the a/m HID'S either... just wanted to show you the options...
I am glad to hear that you are going to take a long test drive. I have experiance extream discomfort in the driver's seat of my CX-9. A couple of hours should let you know how it will feel to you. Most seem to love it, myself and a few other larger people hate it. Pay special attention to the hard seam in the side bolsters of the seat bottom. I had to modify the foam to make it tolerable to drive.
Also, make sure that the dealer give you a set of cross bars for the roof rack. I cannot believe that was not included in a 40K MSRP vehicle...
I would also skip the nav system if possible. A Garmin Nuvii is far superior in just about every way. It is not integrated with the stereo, but works so much better and only cost about $300.00. The voice command in the CX-9 rarely works correctly and the DVD map is badly out of date. The user interface is very difficult to set up and use realitive to aftermarket alternatives.
Since you have a family, take special note of the limited storage bins in the CX-9.
I very much regret my purchase of the CX-9. It is without a doubt the worst decision I have evey made on a vehicle purchase.
Comments
Well you have to compare correctly here: the Accord doesn't have third row seating, so the real comparison would be to fold down the 3rd row seats in the CX-9 and then try to fit a stroller. Unless, of course, you actually meant that you couldn't fit a stroller with the 3rd row seats down.
As for the DVD, people are talking about a built-in DVD in the headrests, which can be installed by Mazda dealers I believe, so no hanging straps or cords. This gives you the option to watch 2 different movies at once, which is nice with 2 kids.
If I was to do the real comparison and fold down the 3rd row seat to fit the stroller, then there would be no point in buying something weighting 2 tons and measuring 17 feet in length.
If you mean you are not sure a minivan can fit two strollers in the trunk with the 3rd row seats up, they will. The MPV's are smaller than other minivans (and the CX-9) by a whole foot. The trunk of a Honda Odissey gulped the two strollers without effort (the twin-stroller nicely slotted in the space opened when the 3rd row is up.)
Another thing is the light source behind the screen might be distracting to the kids watching the movie, unless you draw the shade, at least.
Obviously, competitors have overcome those issues and offer both.
Head rest monitors give you 2 screens and don't block the rear view mirrors but they're limited in size, usually to just 7".
Get used to a 12" screen and you would need binoculars to see a puny 7" screen.
And I would suspect the warranty would be void the moment one of them touched the wiring harness to integrate the monitors into the vehicle's power system.
Maybe Mazda should start offering headrest DVD's as an optional equipment. They provide better viewing than units mounted under the ceiling. If people in the 3rd row also want to watch whatever the 2nd row is watching, owners can just buy/rent an extra copy of all their DVD's and hand the passenger a $90 portable unit to watch on their laps.
He did have to hard wire the dome light to the door switch, though. Not all players have such a light.
I don't like the idea of portables because they attract thieves. Plus you gotta set them up for little kids. That wouldn't work for me at all.
The 12" screen on the ceiling is big enough for all 6 positions in the back rows to see the screen, that's much simpler IMO.
Yes, people can go for after-market parts and maybe keep their warranty, have an extra wire here or there, etc.
I definitely agree with CX-9 being stylish; there is nothing better looking out there in this segment (not including offerings north of 50K). I doubt anyone in this thread have or ever will drive any of these vehicles at their limits, so that I don't see the point. Under normal driving conditions, a test-drive on an Odyssey showed little difference in terms of pitch/dive/roll, if any.
" If handling is important to a buyer" - then you should go buy a station wagon which has a good percentage of the utility of a CUV, infinitely better handling, and gets better mileage...I'm one of THOSE buyers as I have both and then of course there is the track toy, so who are we kidding.
And the CX gives up useful space for occupant comfort and the ability to carry stuff behind an occupied 3rd row for faux handling and looks, I'd argue that to be a bit of a flaw as well.
but the exercise can be blah, blah, blahed about all of them...
It's more likely the bean counters' decision.
just putting an extra bicycle chain in my CVT to take advantage of all of the extra HP I'm making with the ebay speed parts I've bought lately and the Nitrous I have hidden in the toddler car seat...ooops did I just let that out??? there goes my negotiation secrets...
But there is a point to buying such a behemoth: for the occasional 3rd row use! I have 2 kids, and we'll be using that 3rd row only on occasion (typically when family/friends come over and we want to take only one car). So for the most part the 3rd row will always be folded over, but it'll be very convenient when used.
Minivans are fine and dandy if you plan on keeping that 3rd row up at all times. In my case, I can't justify a minivans with only 2 kids.
If anything, the bean-counters would have preferred to give buyers the option to spend more beans on their CX-9, buying *both* the moonroof and the DVD. I am pretty sure the people trading their minivans for something in this market segment will go for both options most of the time.
(Plus the Hyundai Santa Fe is so sweet! Reading reviews of the Enclave, and even looking at the pictures...they look so much alike in pictures) The reviews both focus on how quite they both are and how smooth they ride.
However, I am an American, and I am very glad to hear all the good things about these new GM crossovers (Yes I know, Made in America is not necessarily made in the USA, it could also mean Canada, Mexico etc.) Even my Hyundai was actually assembled in the U.S.
I am just glad to see American car manufacturers getting it right. I have never owned a GM vehicle before (My previous American vehicles have been Fords) but in 9 years or so when I am getting ready to trade in the Hyundai I would be glad to be able to buy American.
I also want to add in that I also like the New Silverado, and if I were buying a full size truck that is what I would buy, forget the new Tundra, it is almost as ugly as the Honda Ridgeline.
I have also heard great things about the new truck based SUVs, when Consumer Reports gives a favorable review to a new American vehicle and gives it an anticipated good rating on reliability you know GM is doing something right!
Great job GM on your large Trucks/CUVs/SUVs!
Now do something about your cars (other than Cadillac which is already doing great!)
As for the wagon, they are probably all that you/most people really need a larger percentage of the time than you think and as noted will provide a better driving experience every time. How many times do you/people really load up a CUV or a mini to the point a wagon wouldn't do the job??? sort of like the 5' tall blonde getting out of the suburban for a trip to get a single gallon of milk...
I'm getting the feeling that in addition to the several Hyundai salesmen and couple of Freestyle apologists, this board is a bunch of old guys who should REALLY should be buying minivans. Those individuals obviously care nothing about the drive, but simply want to keep the kids quite on the trip while they set the cruise control and motor down the interstate...so why deal with any of the "negatives" of CUV's? Heck, if I was one of those guys, I'd by a Sienna and pick up a couple MPGs.
But thanks for this priceless piece of information;
"when Consumer Reports gives a favorable review to a new American vehicle and gives it an anticipated good rating on reliability you know GM is doing something right"
"anticipated good rating" that's laughable. It's bad enough people use CR for advice on automotive purchases thinking their data base is representitive but to make a purchase based on speculation that because they think something is going to be good is the best one I've heard in a long time.
To kid yourself that a 4500lb CUV "handles" is silly. The point of a CUV is to get people and stuff safely from one point to another. Driving satisfaction while needing competance to do this is really a LONG WAY from something that could be argued to "handle" with any "performance" connotation. I drive my track toy for when I want to drive something that "handles" and when I want to get my family from one place to another with competant handling and safety I hop in the FS or wagon which handles a whole lot better than any CUV.
BTW - There's really nothing to apologize for with the purchase of a FS.
"Heck, if I was one of those guys, I'd by a Sienna and pick up a couple MPGs"
Newsflash - you are one of those guys, you are experiencing the same denial the rest of us CUV buyers are, we want better mpg and don't want to be seen in a minivan and need to carry stuff/people periodically.
I bet you got the 20's as well, didn't you??? Chrome I'm thinking... yeah, concerned about handling....
I'll try a borrowed lighter-weight stroller on the CX-9. Somehow the Saturn Outlook is looking like the better option every day. It doesn't look as good as the CX-9 and is not as roomy as the Odyssey, but it splits their different between style and utility.
your thoughts and stroller may vary...
What turned me off on the Odyssey competitors were the interiors, not the exterior. They have slightly better ground clearance, and will enter our garage, but their interior is either dated (Chrysler) or look dated (Sienna.) If I am going to shell out 35K on a car, I wan't to have a least some satisfaction when I step into it.
Next (and last) stop were the CUVs. My wife will not set her foot on a Ford after two horrible experiences with past models (8 recalls on her old Focus + 1 one in the glove box when we traded it in at a small fraction of its original price).
Next stop on my shopping list for 3 rows of seating:
skip Ford FS (wife black-ball, not my call) ,
skip GMC Acadia (wife black-ball, can't drive something wearing the 'professional grade' badge) ,
skip Buick Enclave (too pricey, too overwrought) ,
skip Toyota Highlander (trunk too cramped) ,
skip Honda Pilot (trunk too cramped) ,
skip all Germans (too pricey and not better on space) ,
skip Hyundai SantaFe (glove compartment bigger than the trunk)
have not checked the SantaCruz, but maybe should (MotorTrend says it is better than a Lexus RX350).
stop at Mazda, find a nice vehicle with some compromises that I unfortunately can't make (if it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit), move on.
I am now torn between the Sienna utility vs. the Outlook interior. The Sienna will definitely hold its value better than the Outlook. Once you muscle past the Saturn badge, the Outlook is a fine vehicle, with an interior that looks better than anything in its class barring the CX-9 (I think they look equally good) .
The Outlook feels (and is) heavier but much more comfortable. The engine is...gasp...more refined too. Honda V6 smooth (and I drive a Honda V6.) I never thought I would call a GM vehicle well engineered, but there you have it, it is.
It's the Veracurz, but since my wife was born there, I could live with Santa Cruz just fine. :shades:
simply want to keep the kids quite on the trip
That is a non sequitur. Old guys generally do not have the problem of having to keep the kids quiet on a trip because their kids are all grown up and on their own.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
I also like the "handling and firm ride" of the CX-9 much better than the truck it replaced, although I admit an MX6 Sportwagon would have been more fun to drive (wife said it was too small for our needs, and she was probably right) It's been great for towing my sailboat, hauling the canoes, and loading up my r/c planes whenever I get the time (which isn't much nowadays). I'd say if you want a wagon, minivan, or CUV, get what appeals most to how you'll plan to use it...
Acadia/Outlook
CX-9
Veracruz
2008 redesigned Highlander
The redesigned Highlander, which comes out this month, could be a surprise: it has all sorts of neat features, and is bigger than the outgoing model.
I just know I have to get something before the fall: my wife is getting annoyed at me for waiting so long...
You're still a young'n! :shades:
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Does anyone have any insider info on whether the 2008 Mazda CX-9 will have solid color leather as opposed to the two-tone?
Thanks,
Cheryl
your thoughts and stroller may vary... "
The OP was commenting on Cx-9 vs Outlook vs Minivan. You interject with the virtues of the Freestyle. You have done this several times before, where someone was asking about cars x, y and z, clearly defined in their list, and you mention the Freestyle. If the discussion is about the Freestyle, then fine. But it really doesn't need to be brought up when people are focused elsewhere. Just leads to the bickering here that always veers off path
This is why the term "Freestyle apologist" is put forth here.
But you are allowed to offer your suggestions in a previous post freely to someone not considering what you thought they should and not be termed an apologist;
"Cant answer your FS question, but why on earth would he be looking at an almost extinct Uplander with no fold in the floor seating? If he's a minivan guy, and it sounds like he's looking for a low price, how about the Kia or DCX vans?"
That post was "focused elsewhere" and you thought enough of your opinion to redirect them to something else that might serve their needs. I suggest you take you own suggestion and do something unpleasant with it as all I was doing was politely offering an option the OP may not have thought of in light of some of the shortcomings of the list of vehicles he was considering. If you read further after my post the OP offered his thoughts for not considering any number of the options including the FS, did I push my point, no, did I bring it up again, no, the OP is doing his homework and will buy whatever he wants, I could care less as I just threw it out there.
You can get over the "apologist" high horse as the superiority complex of those that look down their nose at the FS is more than a little old, shortsighted, unfounded and painfully predictable. It's a solid effort that came to market 2 years BEFORE all of the current crop you are so fond of got here.
why don't you let the moderator's do the moderating around here...
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
I spent the weekend with an Outlook XR AWD(great Saturn policy, other manufactures should copy) .
It averaged 16 mpg, but probably would get 17-18 on the FWD I really wanted.
Kudos for GM engineering on the powertrain and suspension.It has a well-behaved suspension upon encountering holes, ridges and bumps on the pavement. When you brake it hard, it doesn't dive 6 inches and bounces 3 times on its way back.
The engine and the transmission are masterpieces, although the heavy weight will send the transmission hunting between 4th and 6th gear on long straightways with some inclination and the auto-pilot set to 65mph.
The interior is minivan big and pleasing with soft-padding everywhere your elbows touch. An unforgivable letdown is the steering wheel and all buttons mounted to it. First of all, you don't put your emblem in plastic faux-aluminum in the middle of the steering wheel; you use real aluminum. Second, you sweat the button tactile feel until they feel as if they are milled out of steel and not lightweight hollow plastic (volume adjustment.) Any $100 stereo will provide a more substantial feel. Even more unthinkable, the same switchgear is applied unchanged to its upscale cousin, the Enclave.
Everything else makes for a great vehicle.
I am driving a CX-9 again this weekend, this time demanding for a 2 hour drive without the salesman pestering me on the passenger seat.
I want it to win me over because I want to buy something as small as light as I possibly need. I talked my wife into getting a smaller stroller for the twins, which will fit the trunk. They are already 2 and half year old and mostly use the bigger stroller when we go out on park walks, which I can use our other car for (we are probably keeping the Murano although it would also fit in the trunk of a Honda Accord coupe). Yes, people will tell me I could just lower the 3rd row, but the CX-9 would be the family hauler, with a baby car-seat in the second row and two booster seats permanently mounted on the 3rd row (yes, the baby doesn't go for walks because I can't push 2 strollers at the same time :-)
The oddly mutually exclusive optional packages are still seriously getting in the way: (1) I cannot have moonroof and rear-entertaining at the same time, (2) if I want Xenon headlights or fog lights I need to go for the GT model and its uncomfortable 20" wheels and low-profile tires, (3) can't combine different interior leather colors with exterior colors, etc.
I'll post another entry after the second drive.
Change the lights? Do you mean installing after-market HID or fog-lamps to the Touring model?
It makes one wonder, since the lowlier Mazda 3 offers standard fog-lamps in its Touring sedan model and in all hatchback models.
re: tire pressure... just be careful not to alarm the TPS system. but that's deffinately a means of working with your personal settings...
see this link for HID lights : http://www.mazdaforum.com/m_47389/tm.htm
As for the after-market HID lights, they are not legal for street driving according to their own supplier (http://www.xenoneyes.com/index.php?page=faq) : Even if an overzealous dealer doesn't hand you to local authorities (a.k.a never argue the service manager or bicker over mysterious 'shop-supply' charges,) you can forget about the factory warranty as the installation process involves drilling a couple of holes.
That said, I'll be shooting for the GT and the minimum recommended pressure on each tire.
Does Mazda's TPMS use the ABS sensors or does it actually have sensors in each wheel?
part number TD11 V7 220F and TD11 V7 247F PZ ( example for black color. ) Personaly I'd not use the a/m HID'S either... just wanted to show you the options...
Also, make sure that the dealer give you a set of cross bars for the roof rack. I cannot believe that was not included in a 40K MSRP vehicle...
I would also skip the nav system if possible. A Garmin Nuvii is far superior in just about every way. It is not integrated with the stereo, but works so much better and only cost about $300.00. The voice command in the CX-9 rarely works correctly and the DVD map is badly out of date. The user interface is very difficult to set up and use realitive to aftermarket alternatives.
Since you have a family, take special note of the limited storage bins in the CX-9.
I very much regret my purchase of the CX-9. It is without a doubt the worst decision I have evey made on a vehicle purchase.
I am getting more and more advice about after-market customizations for the CX9.
What would you buy today if you knew what you know now?