Maybe the new 2008 Chrysler models will be a match for the Odyssey. The 2007 models almost inflict their dated interiors onto the occupants.
I wasn't that impressed with stow and go because the Odissey has it on 3rd row. I think the 2nd row sacrificed too much passenger comfort - the seats need shorter seat cushions to fit their slots in the floor - for the rare occasions where you would need a covered flat bed. A $25 Home Depot rental truck every now and then offsets passenger discomfort the other 364 days of the year.
When I saw the boxy new exterior, it reminded me of the deceased GM minivans, but the new interior really puzzled me. Two big air vents and an analogous watch sitting in the middle of the dash and AC/radio controls sitting at knee level?
With a van you definitely get the most for your money- space and practicality wise. But I think auto makers do see that this segment is giving way to CUVs- in waves. Why else would GM build a near Tahoe sized crossover?
BEfore the CUV, they were being replaced by full sized SUVs before gas shot up. THere will always be a need for the van, but now there are many for choices. ANd I bet no one on this forum who has owned a van 5+ years has gotten or will get another one.
I also bet that any one who has kept there van for 10 years (the smart way to do it!) needs a family hauler replacement.
There is NO WAY these can remind you of an Uplander. Those were a trick by GM so they wouldn't have to remodel- and look where they got them? They are dead. I will admit the new exterior only looks okay- but there isn't a van style out there that I think looks that good. In my oppinion, the old T&C looked as good or better than any other on the road (exterior wise). I have to totally disagree with you on the inerior, though.The new T&C looks better inside than ANY other van on the road. Plus- the 2nd row turns around! This is real Luxury.
>If you're concerned with Ford's reliability, I'd go for the Pilot....
Did we all forget that Ford beat out Toyota (and Honda) for the number one spot in J.D. Power's initial quality index? Number one! I see a lot of people here totally dismiss the Ford Freestyle/Taurus X based on a preconceived notion about Ford. I know how they feel because I was once one of those people. I had always driven quality sporty European cars and couldn't imagine owning a Ford.
Two years ago we were looking for the perfect family vehicle and did not want a minivan. We were pretty much stumped when I happened to get a Freestyle as a rental car on a business trip. I was amazed at how nicely it drove and how practical the interior layout was. It wasn't until later that I found out it was built on a Volvo platform. I couldn't believe it had three full size rows with room behind the third. I knew this was the one. We bought one and haven't regretted it a day since. We now have over 40k miles on it and it has never needed any repairs.
I have turned from a person who snubbed their nose at anything Ford to someone who is very impressed with the Freestyle. All I say is if you are looking for a CUV at least give one a drive. I am looking forward to checking out the Taurus X to see how Ford has improved it even further.
How about the Mazda 5? It's a 6 passenger vehicle... a lil more than a sedan... and less than the cuv's...price point is deffinately cheaper than the rest... and drives realy nice.
Another option would be a 6-passenger sedan like the Impala or Lacrosse. Both are considerably smaller than the Lambdas. Even the Lucerne would drive "smaller," though it is no shorter.
A car would give up signifigcant passenger and cargo space. In a CUv you sit up, which is proven more comfortable than a car position. THat's why ford 500 sits up. And Vans drive no larger than cars. Really, If you've driven a van it's like a tall car. It's like that with crossovers. So since the Lucerne is actually a couple inches longer than the Acadia, it probably drives a little larger. Plus- the six is way underpowered compared to the Lambdas.
FOrd may have beat out Toyota and HOnda for number one in quality, but I don't remember J.D. saying anything about the FS. DOn't get me wrong though-the FS is really nice, It just isn't right for someone looking for a small CUV, being an inch shorter than lambdas. And it's a little cargo challenged, too.
Vans replaced station wagons in the late 80s, then SUVs replaced vans in the early 90s.
I wouldn't say that CUVs are killing them off, they've been fading for a while now, mostly due to image issues and buyers' own insecurities with that.
Better for me, though. I'd like to personally thank each and every person here for shifting to CUVs. :shades:
That's the only reason I was able to get a rebate on my van.
albook: stow-n-go is neat, but I agree with nastacio that it makes the seats uncomfortable. Chrysler also no longer offers AWD plus they don't sell a model with 8 seats. The 2nd row windows don't open, and their engines fall well behind the multi-valvers from Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and Kia/Hyundai.
I'm looking forward to the 2008 models, but they came too late for me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I still don't think they will offer an 8 seater or an OHC engine.
To the person shopping for his wife - do backup cameras open up some options for her? I realize you've been there, done that with a Sienna, but the new 3.5l engine and a backup camera might draw her back to one of those.
To put some fire into the quality discussion, the Outlook really bombed on the JD survey. Given my test-drive with one, I would have to agree with it.
Toyota and Honda have not been a standard for quality lately. I test-drove a Solara before buying an Accord Coupe. The Solara had a loose plastic molding on the A pillar and the Accord has had at least 3 quality-related problems in 2 years, requiring visits to the dealership.
Not sure the models completely built in Japan have the same issues.
ANd I bet no one on this forum who has owned a van 5+ years has gotten or will get another one.
We drove an '89 Voyager for ten years. It got replaced with a '99 Quest that is still our primary car.
We being my wife and myself - no kids.
I'll be the first to admit we aren't typical. My older brother and his wife are on their second minivan, so maybe 7 or 8 years going for them. But they tote their grandkids around a lot.
Yep, as far as comfort goes, I don't think you can beat the minivan. I just sat in a colleague's new Odyssey a few days ago, and was impressed by the nice large seats in the 2nd and 3rd row. When I sat in the Acadia, I thought the 2nd row seat was a bit low to the ground and somewhat lacked thigh support, while in the 3rd row I had no thigh support and my knees were slightly touching the 2nd row.
I was comfortable in all rows in the Odyssey, and could see myself sitting in that 3rd row for a long road trip. Not so with the Acadia.
I agree with the poster who said that CUVs will replace more SUVs than minivans.
StowNGo is nice for cargo, but when you have 3 rows full of people, there's a lot more room behind the 3rd row of an Odyssey (38.4CuFt) over the TC (23.5CuFt), and the legroom of the Odyssey's 3rd row (41.4") beats the TC (33.8") by a lot, as do most of the other interior dimensions. All that the TC has going for it is the StowNGo, but for carrying people, the Odyssey (and Sienna) have everything else beat.
"The Jetta is overweight, underpowered, and gets horrible fuel economy for its size and lack of power."
0-60 mph Jetta (entry cofig.) 8.2 sec, Mazda3 8.0. Oh, yea big difference. Rabbit - 7.8 sec and Mazda3 hatchback 7.8 sec. I see same numbers SAME.
"The Passat is in the Maxima's price territory if you want one without vinyl seats or with more than a 4-cyl engine. " Mazda6 with auto trans 23,795 , Passat 23, 915. Mazda6 0-60 7.0 sec. Passat- 6.6 sec. Ops, again price same, performance almost same also.
based on a preconceived notion about Ford. I know how they feel because I was once one of those people. I had always driven quality sporty European cars and couldn't imagine owning a Ford.
For those shopping for small CUV's, don't forget the Mitsubishi Outlander. 220hp V6, 6 speed manumatic, lots of features and room and unique sporty styling. We just replaced our '01 Villager with one and we love it.
2012 Mustang Premium, 2013 Lincoln MKX Elite, 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander.
Mitsu has come along way with that, but the third row is a JOKE. Don't know what they were thinking. It's a cool little SUV, but if I were in that segment, I'd be getting a HOnda CR-V/ Saturn Vue (the new one).
The Honda CRV is nice, but I didn't like the styling. I like the new Vue's, but they are heavy. I agree the Outlanders third row is useless, I didn't get it on mine.
As far as the Mazda 5, I rented one on vacation in Arizona. Roomy, handled great, seemed built well. Not much power, though, especially loaded up and driving through the mountains. Probably would have been better with the stick.
2012 Mustang Premium, 2013 Lincoln MKX Elite, 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander.
We looked at the top of the line Pacifica limited. The fake wood trim looked very fake to me. Some hard and unattractive plastics in the car as well. Sticker was around 37k before rebate. I think back in 2003 Pacifica may have been top in it's class, but the other students have gotten much smarter and the Pacifica looked to me like it needs a full update.
I don't think any 3rd row is "useless." If a CUV is going to be over 190" long, then I think it should have a 3rd row to be competitive, even if it's considered tiny by some standards. At least this way you have the option of putting a couple of kids or average-sized adults back there for short trips, especially with most CUV having a sliding 2nd row.
That's what made the Highlander so popular. Even though it's 3rd row was small, for carpooling with kids it was fine. Every 3rd row doesn't need to hold 2 six footers weighing 250lbs with enough room behind the 3rd row for a lot of stuff. For the average family with 2 kids, the smaller CUVs with "tiny" 3rd rows can be perfect.
Pacifica remodel- not gonna happen. The CUV never caught on, as Chrysler now sees, so they are going back to the drawing board for a totally new competitor. How do you make such a large vehicle with so little cargo space or third row legroom? Pacifica wasn't the only CUV subject to this. Others like the Benze GL/R, Audi Q7 and Ford Freestyle have dissapionting cargo space for 200 plus lengths. And the benefit of a CUV over an SUV is supposed to be more passenger/ cargo space. At least the Freestyle has decent passenger space. THe PAcifica was all looks- andaged looks at that. Little practicality in my oppinion.
"And the benefit of a CUV over an SUV is supposed to be more passenger/ cargo space"
No... the benefit of the CUV vs. an SUV is improved mileage with similar passenger space and less weight to haul around.
and there is nothing disappointing about my cargo space. the lambdas packed on considerable lbs to the detriment of handling and "performance" to get their interior space(wider than the FS and other competitiors). I'll still take mine...
and I'd argue the pacifica has caught on, it's been around the longest, there are a lot of them on the road, they have been reaasonably successful for chrysler. it's just the competition has caught and passed them with design/features/mpg, etc.. but I'd hardly say it never caught on.
. Others like the Benze GL/R, Audi Q7 and Ford Freestyle have dissapionting cargo space for 200 plus lengths.
Look at the length of some 4dr sedans. I think of these vehicles you mentioned above as alternatives for people that would like to drive a car, but need more space than a 4dr sedan offers.
CUVs are not just designed as minivan or SUV replacements.
But it is also fad and fashion. Wagons have a lot of space, without being jacked up so high. They are popular in Europe, but out of fashion here, except for some niche models.
People here seem to like riding on top, rather than within. For some, they even got a sense of greater safety--at least until the top-heaviness of SUVs became more apparent (lots more rollovers than with cars). That has been largely resolved with stability and anti-roll programs, but it does highlight how a car (sedan or wagon) is inherently safer if you have to make an evasive maneuver. This all may be moot for most American drivers, who pilot even small and low vehicles as if they would tip if they did anything more than crawl around a corner with the brake applied.
I got rid of my Explorer because after awhile I got tired of climbing up into it, rather than just getting in. I am not tall, so another factor is that I periodically like to wash and wax my own car to see that it is done right. Climbing on a stool or small stepladder to wax the roof got old too. So vehicles like the Lambdas will always be out for me. To each his or her own of course.
Your town and Country measurements were off. You looked at the short wheelbase version- which doesn't have stow and go. The long wheelbase has measurements more comparable with the Siennessey vans. And I believe it has the most total cargo space behind the first row.
and there is nothing disappointing about my cargo space. the lambdas packed on considerable lbs to the detriment of handling and "performance" to get their interior space(wider than the FS and other competitiors). I'll still take mine...
When I can go and buy a CUV like the new Highlander that's over a foot shorter, and get 10 more cuft of space, then I'm missinng out if I get a larger car with less. You do add weight with the lambdas, but who cares- they perform decently and have almost 50% more cargo space. I would definitely take the one that's only larger dimension is hieght.
I don't think the PAcifica is a totally flop (like a Pontiac Aztec), But from the beginning Chrysler made too many mistakes. The killer was the near 40g price tag- and the 30g+ starter.
One of the main benefits of having a CUV is definitely space. Why did Ford make the FS so much bigger than the Explorer? So it would have more space. As simple as that. OF course they also wanted better mileage, but I seriously doubtany average buyer realy looks at the weight of their vehicle option, unless it's really underpowered, or handling is bad.
The only problem I see with Lambda's weight is mileage, but somehow GM managed to keep on par with the rest of the category, which is usually a sign of an excellent powertrain.
Just for comparison, a CX-9 or an Edge get the same mileage with 200-400lbs less to carry around.
I am not sure you drove one, but GM got the powertrain and suspension right on the Lambda's. The engine's torque peaking at 3200rpm was quite a feat. The handling felt better than on an Odissey and slightly worse than on our Murano.
I still have reservations on the steering wheel and anything tacked to it, at least on the Outlook. What a let down.
You're right. I was looking at the 189" version; however, from this webpage: http://www-5.chrysler.com/vehsuite/VehicleCompare.jsp# Overall length 200.5" Cargo behind 3rd row 32.5CuFt (6CuFt smaller than Odyssey) 2nd row legroom 34.7 (still a lot less than the Odyssey) 3rd row legroom 31.9 (a whole lot less than the Odyssey)
Seems like Chrysler took the extra 11" in length and put most of it behind the 3rd row for the extra cargo space, but it's still smaller than the Odyssey, unless you have a link to better specs?
why just shoot for "on par" when they could have sharpened their pencils and engineered out some of the extra lbs. and put out a truly class leading effort. that's the problem with the market, most are happy with "on par" and since the market won't demand improvements we are left to legislate them and we know how well that usually works...special interests take over and the new requirements are pushed out ad infinitum leaving us with "on par" mpg and $3 gal gas and record profits.
I meant "on par" with the mileage. I think they did a commendable job of putting out a vehicle that is bigger and roomier than the competition and still achieves the same mileage than others.
One could argue that the whole concept of 4000+lbs vehicles capable of carrying 8 people + cargo is an indictment of American society but I am not here for a political discussion. With three children under 3 and the legal requirement to put each of them on government approved car seats, that is a total of 60+ inches across and a 5 seater can't do the job for me. Would it be my choice, I would keep my 26+ mpg Honda Accord.
the problem only partly lies with politics, its also about the market driven society we have and it's expectations of what is considered acceptable or "on par".
there's nothing commendable about the size/mpg of gm's lambda's or any of them really considering the technology that is PRESENTLY available to allow those same vehicles to get better mpg taking weight out of the argument initially if you want. take lbs. off and the opportunity for even better mileage is even greater. how come no one has already addressed that during their design brief.
there's was no demand because gas was "cheap", just give me more and it'll sell...
With more than 145 cubic feet of cargo space, the Quest, Sienna, Odyssey, and Grand Caravan all have MUCH more space than any crossover, more space than a Suburban, and even more space than an Expedition EL.
It's really no contest. Of course.
And that's comparing medium sized vans with huge SUVs. We won't even mention cargo vans like the E-150...
I could go for one if the math was right. Without getting in the morals of debating whether the price premium for a hybrid is worth the gas savings over time, somehow I think hybrid technology on a 4700lbs would not yield more than 10-15% gas savings. And then the battery takes up space, the vehicle gets bigger, heavier, needs bigger brakes, etc.
I guess they could have gone for some aluminum parts in the suspension, roof and hood, but at 30-40K they are already expensive as they are.
the immediate answer is diesel until the rest of the hybrid technology matures and becomes more in line cost wise. It's suprising why it hasn't been adopted by the american buyer's who love their torque off the line as the diesel has a huge advantage there. It's here, it's cleaner than ever and to not exploit it seems one of the stupider oversights as going the ethanol route ties our food supply to our fuel supply and that will be fraught with repercussions not helping the consumer yet again.
In a hurry right now, so I don't have the specs, but I know for a fact your 2nd/3rd row numbers are wrong. I've sat veryy comfortably in the third row. 31in is about the size of a Honda Pilot. YOu can't even say those two are any thing alike! Second row is also much bigger. I think at least 39 (can't remember for sure).
Really! Just like Ford could have sharpened theirs and engineered a way to have more cargospace for such a large vehicle, and made it less bland looking. Or Chrysler could have Engineered a larger third row. One thing GM has going with these crossovers is that the mileage isn't just on par-they have some of the best numbers- even better than that of most smaller CUVs. But no one is perfect. Any way you look at the situation, there are flaws.
It's so much more than that. There are so many more factors. These companies have to move quickly with this technology while still being profitable. Why doesn't GM produce the Chevy Volt RIGHT NOW? Because the technology it would take is so expensive now that Chevy would not make a profit off it. These things take time. We'll have to wait until 2012 to get it. The board of directors think that's the best time for the technology to meet profitability. What we think is best for the company doesn't hold a candle to what they know will work best. And that's how it works.
"the immediate answer is diesel until the rest of the hybrid technology matures and becomes more in line cost wise. It's suprising why it hasn't been adopted by the american buyer's who love their torque off the line as the diesel has a huge advantage there."
... and diesels can't be bought (new) in CARB states unless the vehicle weighs over 6000 lbs empty. So nobody sells it to any states. Only VW and Mercedes (as far as I know) go to the trouble of selling diesels in non CARB states.
The increase in gas mileage of the Acadia doesn't come without issues: the transmission programming tries to hard to save fuel, which results in gear hunting on small hills and in windy condition, and in laggy response. There have already been a couple of reflashes, and one more coming in August apparently.
This is one of the reasons why I'm waiting to see how they address this, since I live in hilly conditions and found that my rental was very laggy.
You are right, we have no idea of how to improve products that come to market yet the manufacturer's have focus groups and discussions with customers about what they want in their "next" vehicle. Our demands play no role in what they bring to market with their products as the board always knows best. So I trust you have a low mileage aztek under wraps in the garage just waiting for the market to come around for it to be considered a "classic" due to it's low production numbers.
Do you really think that if the market placed enough importance on mpg a few years ago despite gas being considerably cheaper the vehicles here now wouldn't have better mpg numbers available now despite the testing revisions. I'm not talking about hybrids at this for this argument as I know they are not mature enough to be cost effective.
Diesels/turbo diesels are mature and clean enough and can effect large mpg gains with little detriment to performance, a diesel won le mans this year for goodness sake running particulate filters. It flourishes in other markets, why not here.
"What we think is best for the company doesn't hold a candle to what they know will work best. And that's how it works."
You might want to revise that opinion a bit as without us and our market demands they are out of business. They react to us and what we want in our driveway and if you make no expectations of them there's no reason for them to improve. Nothings perfect as you mentioned, no argument there, but they should be doing better than they are and that is a result of the market having its priorities more than a little screwed up.
True, we do have a large effect on the products we have the option of putting in our drive ways, like marketing research, but only in the most profitable sense. AS I said before, those like you and I may have been wanting automakers to build totally electric and clean deisel cars, but right now the market is still not totally mature enough for profitability. Soon they will be. In example, Honda is interested in going totally clean deisel, but I think it has taken them years to come to the conclusion that clean deisel is the way to go (and a little ridicule for their hybrids that take years to pay off). And though some automakers really do wanna hug trees, they all have to make profit. That's the game. As for screwed up priorities, how often do you take off work to go down to your local recycling center? YOu're payed a large sum to do so, right?
And no, I don't have an Aztec, but I have been thinking about that whole classic thing. Who knows? Maybe by 2020...
There are several reasons Diesel engines caught on in European countries. For one, the cost of diesel fuel over there, while still WAY more expensive than in the US, is subsidized so it makes it a much more attractive option than gasoline. Also, until recently, Euro emissions regulations were behind the US, allowing them to skate more diesels by.
But you are right that it is a market-driven and cultural difference at this point. There are generations of kids over there that have known well-built diesels all their life. The first diesel I ever drove was a 1982 Volvo with a 4-speed stick, and aside from smoky burnouts, it did not endear itself to me.
I'm all for diesels. Even diesel hybrids. But I don't think we'll see rampant US diesel acceptance in our lifetimes, unless the gas price doubles or triples.
Incidentally, something I learned today: diesel fuel has more stored energy than an equivalent volume of gasoline, but it also takes more oil to manufacture a gallon of diesel than a gallon of standard gasoline. To boot, the production and refining processes for diesel produce more gases that contribute to global warming. I love internal combustion with all my heart, but until we get off of petroleum, it's a flawed solution any way you cut it.
That's a good point. It takes about 25% more oil to produce a gallon of diesel than for a gallon of gasoline. Diesel is also dirtier than gasoline. (Diesel vs. Gasoline)
And to boot, diesel exhaust makes me sneeze!
P.S. Yes, I know modern diesel is a lot cleaner than it used to be but it is still dirtier than gasoline.
While I'm intrigued, and would certainly consider one, I've found that diesel fans tend to overlook the cons with diesels.
For instance, I drove the Benz E320 and noticed not only turbo lag, but also an on/off feel to the throttle. It's slow, slow, slow... then OH SNAP it's fast, hang on for dear life.
Not exactly smooth or linear, even the new ones.
I realize prices are very regionalized, but here in DC and the MD suburbs, diesel usually costs more than gas, often more than premium fuel, even. That offsets a good part of your savings.
Finally, diesel engines cost significantly more. You invest at least a couple grand extra up front. You make it up at resale, sure, but you're still investing more up front.
Other issues? Less fuel availability, as not all stations even carry diesel. They still shake more and make more NVH, even though the gap has narrowed substantially. When you do fuel up you might be standing in a slippery puddle of oil.
Buy one for the extra range, mileage, long-term durability and strong residuals, but be aware of the trade-offs above. That way you go into it without any blinders on.
US-based automaker Ford Motor Company has reported a $750 Million profit in the April through June quarter, breaking a nearly two-year streak of consecutive quarterly losses.
Every situation has its drawbacks of course, and diesels definitely do.
But the improvements are there. The new BlueTechs for example don't even sound like diesels, much less smell, or shake, or rattle. The acceleration is great and mpg up. Diesels tend to do better than their EPA estimates after they are broken in. And diesel fuel prices are seasonal. Right now, diesel costs less than gasoline. In the winter, that flip-flops.
The ultra low sulphur diesel does not smell like the old diesel fuel. And of course diesels can be modified to run on used cooking oil (lending a deepfried odor to the exhaust). For me, I have never ever had a problem finding diesel fuel anywhere I need it.
And one of the biggest pluses for me is the lack of flammability. Diesel fuel is not volatile like gasoline and won't create a bomb in a severe accident or in other instances of leakage. There was an explosion at a gas station in my neck of the woods and the results were far from pretty. We have all been so habituated to gasoline that we forget what a danger it represents.
Comments
I wasn't that impressed with stow and go because the Odissey has it on 3rd row. I think the 2nd row sacrificed too much passenger comfort - the seats need shorter seat cushions to fit their slots in the floor - for the rare occasions where you would need a covered flat bed. A $25 Home Depot rental truck every now and then offsets passenger discomfort the other 364 days of the year.
When I saw the boxy new exterior, it reminded me of the deceased GM minivans, but the new interior really puzzled me. Two big air vents and an analogous watch sitting in the middle of the dash and AC/radio controls sitting at knee level?
BEfore the CUV, they were being replaced by full sized SUVs before gas shot up. THere will always be a need for the van, but now there are many for choices. ANd I bet no one on this forum who has owned a van 5+ years has gotten or will get another one.
I also bet that any one who has kept there van for 10 years (the smart way to do it!) needs a family hauler replacement.
Did we all forget that Ford beat out Toyota (and Honda) for the number one spot in J.D. Power's initial quality index? Number one! I see a lot of people here totally dismiss the Ford Freestyle/Taurus X based on a preconceived notion about Ford. I know how they feel because I was once one of those people. I had always driven quality sporty European cars and couldn't imagine owning a Ford.
Two years ago we were looking for the perfect family vehicle and did not want a minivan. We were pretty much stumped when I happened to get a Freestyle as a rental car on a business trip. I was amazed at how nicely it drove and how practical the interior layout was. It wasn't until later that I found out it was built on a Volvo platform. I couldn't believe it had three full size rows with room behind the third. I knew this was the one. We bought one and haven't regretted it a day since. We now have over 40k miles on it and it has never needed any repairs.
I have turned from a person who snubbed their nose at anything Ford to someone who is very impressed with the Freestyle. All I say is if you are looking for a CUV at least give one a drive. I am looking forward to checking out the Taurus X to see how Ford has improved it even further.
- Chad
The new T&C looks better inside than ANY other van on the road.
Using capital-case does not move the AC/radio controls up in the dash.
A car would give up signifigcant passenger and cargo space. In a CUv you sit up, which is proven more comfortable than a car position. THat's why ford 500 sits up. And Vans drive no larger than cars. Really, If you've driven a van it's like a tall car. It's like that with crossovers. So since the Lucerne is actually a couple inches longer than the Acadia, it probably drives a little larger. Plus- the six is way underpowered compared to the Lambdas.
I wouldn't say that CUVs are killing them off, they've been fading for a while now, mostly due to image issues and buyers' own insecurities with that.
Better for me, though. I'd like to personally thank each and every person here for shifting to CUVs. :shades:
That's the only reason I was able to get a rebate on my van.
albook: stow-n-go is neat, but I agree with nastacio that it makes the seats uncomfortable. Chrysler also no longer offers AWD plus they don't sell a model with 8 seats. The 2nd row windows don't open, and their engines fall well behind the multi-valvers from Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and Kia/Hyundai.
I'm looking forward to the 2008 models, but they came too late for me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I still don't think they will offer an 8 seater or an OHC engine.
To the person shopping for his wife - do backup cameras open up some options for her? I realize you've been there, done that with a Sienna, but the new 3.5l engine and a backup camera might draw her back to one of those.
Toyota and Honda have not been a standard for quality lately. I test-drove a Solara before buying an Accord Coupe. The Solara had a loose plastic molding on the A pillar and the Accord has had at least 3 quality-related problems in 2 years, requiring visits to the dealership.
Not sure the models completely built in Japan have the same issues.
We drove an '89 Voyager for ten years. It got replaced with a '99 Quest that is still our primary car.
We being my wife and myself - no kids.
I'll be the first to admit we aren't typical.
And the Mazda5 does have my attention.
I was comfortable in all rows in the Odyssey, and could see myself sitting in that 3rd row for a long road trip. Not so with the Acadia.
StowNGo is nice for cargo, but when you have 3 rows full of people, there's a lot more room behind the 3rd row of an Odyssey (38.4CuFt) over the TC (23.5CuFt), and the legroom of the Odyssey's 3rd row (41.4") beats the TC (33.8") by a lot, as do most of the other interior dimensions. All that the TC has going for it is the StowNGo, but for carrying people, the Odyssey (and Sienna) have everything else beat.
0-60 mph Jetta (entry cofig.) 8.2 sec, Mazda3 8.0. Oh, yea big difference.
Rabbit - 7.8 sec and Mazda3 hatchback 7.8 sec. I see same numbers SAME.
"The Passat is in the Maxima's price territory if you want one without vinyl seats or with more than a 4-cyl engine. "
Mazda6 with auto trans 23,795 , Passat 23, 915. Mazda6 0-60 7.0 sec. Passat- 6.6 sec. Ops, again price same, performance almost same also.
Welcome to the Dark Side.
As far as the Mazda 5, I rented one on vacation in Arizona. Roomy, handled great, seemed built well. Not much power, though, especially loaded up and driving through the mountains. Probably would have been better with the stick.
That's what made the Highlander so popular. Even though it's 3rd row was small, for carpooling with kids it was fine. Every 3rd row doesn't need to hold 2 six footers weighing 250lbs with enough room behind the 3rd row for a lot of stuff. For the average family with 2 kids, the smaller CUVs with "tiny" 3rd rows can be perfect.
No... the benefit of the CUV vs. an SUV is improved mileage with similar passenger space and less weight to haul around.
and there is nothing disappointing about my cargo space. the lambdas packed on considerable lbs to the detriment of handling and "performance" to get their interior space(wider than the FS and other competitiors). I'll still take mine...
and I'd argue the pacifica has caught on, it's been around the longest, there are a lot of them on the road, they have been reaasonably successful for chrysler. it's just the competition has caught and passed them with design/features/mpg, etc.. but I'd hardly say it never caught on.
I do wish Mazda would invest a bit more and add power sliding doors and maybe the engine from the CX7.
It's funny, compare the interior room on a Mazda5 against a CX7, I swear it's twice as big.
Look at the length of some 4dr sedans. I think of these vehicles you mentioned above as alternatives for people that would like to drive a car, but need more space than a 4dr sedan offers.
CUVs are not just designed as minivan or SUV replacements.
People here seem to like riding on top, rather than within. For some, they even got a sense of greater safety--at least until the top-heaviness of SUVs became more apparent (lots more rollovers than with cars). That has been largely resolved with stability and anti-roll programs, but it does highlight how a car (sedan or wagon) is inherently safer if you have to make an evasive maneuver. This all may be moot for most American drivers, who pilot even small and low vehicles as if they would tip if they did anything more than crawl around a corner with the brake applied.
I got rid of my Explorer because after awhile I got tired of climbing up into it, rather than just getting in. I am not tall, so another factor is that I periodically like to wash and wax my own car to see that it is done right. Climbing on a stool or small stepladder to wax the roof got old too. So vehicles like the Lambdas will always be out for me. To each his or her own of course.
When I can go and buy a CUV like the new Highlander that's over a foot shorter, and get 10 more cuft of space, then I'm missinng out if I get a larger car with less. You do add weight with the lambdas, but who cares- they perform decently and have almost 50% more cargo space. I would definitely take the one that's only larger dimension is hieght.
I don't think the PAcifica is a totally flop (like a Pontiac Aztec), But from the beginning Chrysler made too many mistakes. The killer was the near 40g price tag- and the 30g+ starter.
One of the main benefits of having a CUV is definitely space. Why did Ford make the FS so much bigger than the Explorer? So it would have more space. As simple as that. OF course they also wanted better mileage, but I seriously doubtany average buyer realy looks at the weight of their vehicle option, unless it's really underpowered, or handling is bad.
Just for comparison, a CX-9 or an Edge get the same mileage with 200-400lbs less to carry around.
I am not sure you drove one, but GM got the powertrain and suspension right on the Lambda's. The engine's torque peaking at 3200rpm was quite a feat. The handling felt better than on an Odissey and slightly worse than on our Murano.
I still have reservations on the steering wheel and anything tacked to it, at least on the Outlook. What a let down.
http://www-5.chrysler.com/vehsuite/VehicleCompare.jsp#
Overall length 200.5"
Cargo behind 3rd row 32.5CuFt (6CuFt smaller than Odyssey)
2nd row legroom 34.7 (still a lot less than the Odyssey)
3rd row legroom 31.9 (a whole lot less than the Odyssey)
Seems like Chrysler took the extra 11" in length and put most of it behind the 3rd row for the extra cargo space, but it's still smaller than the Odyssey, unless you have a link to better specs?
why just shoot for "on par" when they could have sharpened their pencils and engineered out some of the extra lbs. and put out a truly class leading effort. that's the problem with the market, most are happy with "on par" and since the market won't demand improvements we are left to legislate them and we know how well that usually works...special interests take over and the new requirements are pushed out ad infinitum leaving us with "on par" mpg and $3 gal gas and record profits.
One could argue that the whole concept of 4000+lbs vehicles capable of carrying 8 people + cargo is an indictment of American society but I am not here for a political discussion. With three children under 3 and the legal requirement to put each of them on government approved car seats, that is a total of 60+ inches across and a 5 seater can't do the job for me. Would it be my choice, I would keep my 26+ mpg Honda Accord.
there's nothing commendable about the size/mpg of gm's lambda's or any of them really considering the technology that is PRESENTLY available to allow those same vehicles to get better mpg taking weight out of the argument initially if you want. take lbs. off and the opportunity for even better mileage is even greater. how come no one has already addressed that during their design brief.
there's was no demand because gas was "cheap", just give me more and it'll sell...
With more than 145 cubic feet of cargo space, the Quest, Sienna, Odyssey, and Grand Caravan all have MUCH more space than any crossover, more space than a Suburban, and even more space than an Expedition EL.
It's really no contest. Of course.
And that's comparing medium sized vans with huge SUVs. We won't even mention cargo vans like the E-150...
I guess they could have gone for some aluminum parts in the suspension, roof and hood, but at 30-40K they are already expensive as they are.
... and diesels can't be bought (new) in CARB states unless the vehicle weighs over 6000 lbs empty. So nobody sells it to any states. Only VW and Mercedes (as far as I know) go to the trouble of selling diesels in non CARB states.
This is one of the reasons why I'm waiting to see how they address this, since I live in hilly conditions and found that my rental was very laggy.
Do you really think that if the market placed enough importance on mpg a few years ago despite gas being considerably cheaper the vehicles here now wouldn't have better mpg numbers available now despite the testing revisions. I'm not talking about hybrids at this for this argument as I know they are not mature enough to be cost effective.
Diesels/turbo diesels are mature and clean enough and can effect large mpg gains with little detriment to performance, a diesel won le mans this year for goodness sake running particulate filters. It flourishes in other markets, why not here.
"What we think is best for the company doesn't hold a candle to what they know will work best. And that's how it works."
You might want to revise that opinion a bit as without us and our market demands they are out of business. They react to us and what we want in our driveway and if you make no expectations of them there's no reason for them to improve. Nothings perfect as you mentioned, no argument there, but they should be doing better than they are and that is a result of the market having its priorities more than a little screwed up.
And no, I don't have an Aztec, but I have been thinking about that whole classic thing. Who knows? Maybe by 2020...
But you are right that it is a market-driven and cultural difference at this point. There are generations of kids over there that have known well-built diesels all their life. The first diesel I ever drove was a 1982 Volvo with a 4-speed stick, and aside from smoky burnouts, it did not endear itself to me.
I'm all for diesels. Even diesel hybrids. But I don't think we'll see rampant US diesel acceptance in our lifetimes, unless the gas price doubles or triples.
Incidentally, something I learned today: diesel fuel has more stored energy than an equivalent volume of gasoline, but it also takes more oil to manufacture a gallon of diesel than a gallon of standard gasoline. To boot, the production and refining processes for diesel produce more gases that contribute to global warming. I love internal combustion with all my heart, but until we get off of petroleum, it's a flawed solution any way you cut it.
And to boot, diesel exhaust makes me sneeze!
P.S. Yes, I know modern diesel is a lot cleaner than it used to be but it is still dirtier than gasoline.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
It clogs arteries too. (BBC)
Wonder if they've heard that over in Diesels in the News?
For instance, I drove the Benz E320 and noticed not only turbo lag, but also an on/off feel to the throttle. It's slow, slow, slow... then OH SNAP it's fast, hang on for dear life.
Not exactly smooth or linear, even the new ones.
I realize prices are very regionalized, but here in DC and the MD suburbs, diesel usually costs more than gas, often more than premium fuel, even. That offsets a good part of your savings.
Finally, diesel engines cost significantly more. You invest at least a couple grand extra up front. You make it up at resale, sure, but you're still investing more up front.
Other issues? Less fuel availability, as not all stations even carry diesel. They still shake more and make more NVH, even though the gap has narrowed substantially. When you do fuel up you might be standing in a slippery puddle of oil.
Buy one for the extra range, mileage, long-term durability and strong residuals, but be aware of the trade-offs above. That way you go into it without any blinders on.
Ford seems to be ahead of the game on this one.
US-based automaker Ford Motor Company has reported a $750 Million profit in the April through June quarter, breaking a nearly two-year streak of consecutive quarterly losses.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-07-26-voa32.cfm
But the improvements are there. The new BlueTechs for example don't even sound like diesels, much less smell, or shake, or rattle. The acceleration is great and mpg up. Diesels tend to do better than their EPA estimates after they are broken in. And diesel fuel prices are seasonal. Right now, diesel costs less than gasoline. In the winter, that flip-flops.
The ultra low sulphur diesel does not smell like the old diesel fuel. And of course diesels can be modified to run on used cooking oil (lending a deepfried odor to the exhaust). For me, I have never ever had a problem finding diesel fuel anywhere I need it.
And one of the biggest pluses for me is the lack of flammability. Diesel fuel is not volatile like gasoline and won't create a bomb in a severe accident or in other instances of leakage. There was an explosion at a gas station in my neck of the woods and the results were far from pretty. We have all been so habituated to gasoline that we forget what a danger it represents.