Are you a current Michigan-based car shopper? A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/2 for details.
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.
Ah there you go again, thinking you bought a cargo van. ;-) I use my 8 passenger vehicle to haul 6-8 passengers so the only cargo volume that matters to me is the usable trunk behind the rear seat. In that setting, my Yukon Xl/Suburban's rear cargo slaps your Sienna silly, gives it a wedgie and sends it crying home to Momma. The printed numbers may make it look close, but it is difficult to effectively use a shallow and tall trunk like the Sienna has. To get all the claimed rear cargo room requires stacking your luggage over 5' high. A difficult feat, and not safe when stacking above the rear seats. As part of our decision process, we looked at whether the Sienna could take over all long haul duties other than towing, but quickly realized the usable trunk size was limited by it's fore-aft depth. There are a bunch of items we routinely throw in along with luggage without thinking in the Yukon XL that wouldn't fit in the Sienna. The dog and her crate are the most obvious. Still might get the Sienna, but the real cargo space won't allow it to become our vacation vehicle. Of course, none of the competition does much better. Ody may be, but not sure. The CUV's are universally much worse of course and any CUV we get will be a short hauler only.
Not only is Ford working on that engine tech but they are definitely releasing the TwinForce tech next year. Word on the Ford forums is that the Fairlane will get one as an option. I'd guess it will get the 3.5L myself.
...you could make an argument that GM was, shockingly, ahead of the curve by offering a large CUV first. I know it is heresy to some to even suggest that GM is not a decade or more behind the times, but they seemed to time the release of the lambdas very well don't you think? It is also at the same time that they are giving up on minivans.
He started it... j/k I was reigning in the hyperbole a little. Having loaded both, the statement that the Sienna has more cargo room may be accurate by some numbers, but doesn't reflect real world functionality. The XL is a monster which fulfills a different niche. Mine tows over 10,000lbs and sucks the gas to do it.
Actually, I'd say the FS that was launched 2 years ago led the large CUV category in that it was the first one to have 3 rows that could hold adults plus having a large cargo area behind the 3rd row. There are more and more now, but in 2005 the Freestyle was it.
Lacking a MB dealer in town, I'd almost certainly never buy one. But it offers AWD and even a diesel with excellent mileage for the segment. SURE it's expensive, but a 3 year lease is the same as the Sienna Limited - the only option for Canadians who want leather and AWD up here. Less than $50 a month different from a Highlander Limited. I'd certainly look at least if we had a local dealer. Funny, though they call it an SUV, I doubt it's ground clearance breaks 5".
Okay- let's compare. in parking, you struggle to get your 2 foot longer Yukon XL into spaces the Sienna slips into with ease. If you have the older Yukon XL, there is no split third row bench, so you have less versatility to expand cargo space. You alos have less 2nd and third row leg and head room for your pecious passengers. Cargo room behind third row of Sienna-43.6. New Suburban-45.8. Not that much gain- and you still lose almost 20 cuft of cargo space overall. And let's talk about what's really hurting you- gas! when you haul all those passengers and their stuff, what do you get? 15 miles to the gallon on the Highway? So overall the Sienna- or any large minivan for that matter spanks- just kiding- beats your Yukon XL. One place where the Yukon does win-Towing/ offroading. But from your post, I can see you don't really do a lot of that. Yeah- you could use a minivan. Oh- another thing! Think of all that money you would have saved! I've taseted both, and I have to say I agree with the numbers. For a CUV, the Acadia comes within ten feet of cargo space to your Yukon XL. But behind row three it's cut in half.
I don't want to come off offensive, just giving some facts.
I think the CUV will probably need to be split into size categories, just like trucks or sedans.
For instance, the Pilot has 70% of the passenger space of an Outlook/Acadia/Enclave. Are they really in the same category?
I am not sure I would consider the FS a CUV. Surely, its 200" in length and 3 rows of seating will put it in the same shopping list as minivans, the CX-9 and Lambdas, but it is really a slightly taller wagon (6" taller than the 500).
If you take my FS-as-a-wagon argument, GM still takes the honors (?!) for first large CUV. Toyota deserves the credit for the first mid-sized CUV (2001).
I think the lambdas and FS are definitely in the same category, as they are the same length. They are similar in width, and the only real diff. is height. But there has to be an end to this midsize lambdda thing. THey have to be classified as fullsized. There may be some argument that they drive smaller than they are, but so do some full size sedans.
But there has to be an end to this midsize lambdda thing.
That was my point; they are full-sized. Other CUVs with 70% of its interior volume are mid-sized.
Length alone does not place the FS in the same category, the older Taurus wagons also had 200" in length (but no 3rd row of seats, I know). If all the FS measures were the same as in a lambda, there would be no missing 40+ cu ft of interior volume. There are clever ways of boosting legroom and headroom measurements, such as lifting the seat edges by an inch or making them lower to the floor, which eventually takes away from overall comfort.
Some people will surely make the point that they love their FS, that the interior room is just right, and that they don't miss more of it. But that is all beside the point that an FS has 30% less of that just-right space than a lambda.
If we stick with 200" length, 7 seats, and unibody as the category definers, then a minivan is a large CUV too.
If you have the older Yukon XL, there is no split third row bench, so you have less versatility to expand cargo space. You alos have less 2nd and third row leg and head room for your pecious passengers.
Don't forget that you STILL have to remove the third row seats from the GM SUVs and store them somewhere as they will not fold into the floor. That is a total deal breaker for me no matter what the gas mileage is.
" But that is all beside the point that an FS has 30% less of that just-right space than a lambda."
and we have 20-25% less weight to haul around as well making them a little less ponderous and even easier to put in a parking space since that seems to be a benchmark around here lately. It's not that ford couldn't have made it a bit wider overall or carved out a bit more space on the interior but I'll still contend in the full size/3 row CUV crowd its the best combination of space vs. performance vs. economy of the crowd. The new T-reX loses a lot of that advantage as far as I'm concerned with the new drivetrain and pricing but that's a whole different discussion.
"If all the FS measures were the same as in a lambda, there would be no missing 40+ cu ft of interior volume. There are clever ways of boosting legroom and headroom measurements, such as lifting the seat edges by an inch or making them lower to the floor, which eventually takes away from overall comfort."
possibly but in the end they are not with the primary difference being the overall width of one vs. the other. Conversly all of those little tricks you speak of all help the interior volume/marketing numbers we love so much around here so who is really playing the numbers game, I'd argue GM is using your logic because of the overall length being the same. Personally I'm not sure there really is 40 cu ft of volume difference between the two after you start to look at the interior dimensions.
I have yet to find overall whole cabin volume numbers for the lambda's on the web, I think I found the FS one once but not sure where that one is. I'd be interested to see the overall numbers as a comparison as opposed to the segmented numbers that are published to compare, that might close the gap a bit but that's just a guess.
I agree with you. After test-driving the FS and Outlook on the same day you can't deny that the lambda is just plain bigger. It has a lot more interior room and is a lot wider.
I think the FS and Pacifica are very similiar. The CX-9 was kind of in between, but should probably be lumped in with the full-sized ones. I have no experience with the VC because it was released after I was done car shopping.
That is not a knock on the FS or Pacifica. Not everyone needs or wants a giant land yahat.
BTW: I refer to all low-towing capacity SUV/CUVs as station wagons or minivans anway. My Outlook is just a better looking minivan. The FS and Pacifica are station wagons. Look at them.
I did not say that the lambdas were better than the FS or that they did not feel bigger, just that their larger interior volume warrants a different category for both.
Ford lists 85.5 cubic feet behind 1st row, the Outlook has 117, a 39% advantage. The Outlook is only 3 inches wider, a 4% difference. I'll leave it up to others to find the other 35%. If the numbers don't convince you, drive an Outlook to your Ford dealer and jump from one to the other without stopping to read legroom/headroom numbers.
"The FS and Pacifica are station wagons. Look at them."
I have and they aren't...if anything the pacifica looks like a chopped minivan with a nose job and the FS has the same profile proportions as a lambda so your assessment is lost on me at least.
I can understand minivan stigma every day of the week, for the life of me I don't get this determination to call the FS a station wagon as it's a CUV like the rest of them.
BTW - I'm far from having station wagon stigma as our other car is a passat wagon so that won't fly here as I enjoy wagon's, they just make sense...
And I just can't see how you can lump a cx9 into "full" size with its pitiful 3rd row accommodations.
Again, I'm not saying the lambda doesn't have more room, I'd just like to see the overall volume numbers to see how they compare and if there really is that much difference.
To quantify it a bit the difference makes a rounded 32cu ft box 2'd x 4'w x 4't(or a box 3"w x 32'w x 32't) . Given their exterior dimensions being largely the same short of width(3" wider can't make up that much volume just behind the 1st row) I'm just not sure how they actually did that. To me something smells a bit in the numbers.
You can get the exact same headroom and legroom numbers in many different ways. If the interior height is not enough, install the seats lower to the floor. If the distance between 2nd row back cushion and the back of the 1st row is not enough, angle the seat upwards. Legroom is the sum of the distance between the passenger hip and the front seat measured on a straight line parallel to the bottom seat cushion and then down to the floor.
Taking the argument to the extreme, you can have the same headroom/legroom numbers in the backseat of a Civic as in a Pilot; just install the backseat two inches lower and the bottom cushion at an angle of 30 degrees with the chassis and you are done. The interior volume will still be less though.
I can't see how you can possibly say that he Pacifica does not look like a station wagon.
Again, I don't see why people should feel stigmatized by driving a minivan, wagon or anything else. Get what you like and what fits your needs. This is not high school (hopefully) where you have to follow a crowd to fit in. (I never did much of that anyway) Do your research and buy what is best for you. Who cares about what symbol is on the hood. If it is a good car and you like it, who cares?
My good friend misses his old Metro. Not because it was a good car (it was a POS) but because he liked driving it and had a lot of fun in it.
This conversation started talking volume numbers that are big differences in cubic feet to categorize mid and full size cuv's. It's not that I don't understand your points, its I don't see how the numbers are as different given the similar envelopes. Visualize the box dimensions I quoted and tell me how an inch here and an inch there is going to add up to that much of a volumetric difference between the two.
Hence getting to my point to really understand the differences between these 2 or any of them for that matter one would need the overall interior volume to get to a comparison of apples to apples in the volume department. One can't categorize mid-size vs. full-size like you are trying to based on the 85.5cuft vs 117cuft. numbers alone.
Again, not saying the lambda isn't the space winner as that's a given, I just don't think the numbers add up to the extent that's quoted around here.
I have and they aren't...if anything the pacifica looks like a chopped minivan with a nose job and the FS has the same profile proportions as a lambda so your assessment is lost on me at least.
They DO look like station wagons. Well, the FS more than the Pacifica. The Pacifica is more miivanish. But the FS looks exactly like a wagon. Ford wants you to know this. That's why the new one is the TX.
"I can't see how you can possibly say that he Pacifica does not look like a station wagon."
for the reasons I already stated...
"Again, I don't see why people should feel stigmatized by driving a minivan...."
We know, we know, unfortunately we're not debating that point as people base the purchases of cars and everything else on all kinds of irrational as well as rational decisions.
Don't forget that you STILL have to remove the third row seats from the GM SUVs and store them somewhere as they will not fold into the floor. That is a total deal breaker for me no matter what the gas mileage is. "
Agreed 100%. Absolutely ridiculous that the redesigned Escalade/TahoeYukon still don't fold in the floor. The Expedition and Navigator (with power fold option) had this in 2003
because albook said so... OK that mystery is solved, I'll sleep better tonight knowing I have 2 wagons in the driveway as opposed to a wagon and a CUV... and ALL of the other CUV's aren't the modern iteration of wagons because??? nice try...
Wagons by definition are not stand alone models, they are the expanded versions of a sedan sharing the parts and styling of the sedans they are based on from the b-pillar forward, the dash and some interior appointments. Last I saw the FS & the 500 share no sheetmetal from the B pillar forward or back for that matter. Using your logic then sharing platforms makes the FS a station wagon vs a CUV. In light of that how come no one is sayng the edge is the "wagon" version of the fusion then since they share platform DNA, tell me that...
Ford has pissed up the marketing from day one and the revamp for me that will keep me from buying a T-reX, so the Ford rename argument holds no water with me.
I stated that back in 2005, the FS was the only CUV with space for adults in the 3rd row AND space behind the 3rd row for a decent amount of cargo. Neither the Pacifica nor the Rendevous qualify in both areas.
As far as CuFt of passenger space...CuFt doesn't equal passenger comfort. It depends on where the CuFt is located. The lambda's roofline is straigt along the top, while the FS roofline slopes up toward the rear. Plus the lambdas are a few inches taller and wider than the FS. Just calculating .25 feet (3inches) higher x 5 feet wide passenger area x 10 feet long passenger = 12.5CuFt of extra space just from the height difference. Add to the a few more CuFt because the lambda's roof is straight and not sloped like the FS. Add to that another 10CuFt for the extra width of the lambda and you're at about 25CuFt of more passenger space in the lambda.
Even though my calculations are nowhere near being exact, you get the idea of how a few inches of width and height can add up to a lot of extra CuFt. But that doesn't necesarily equate to added passenger comfort. I said before that if you're carrying 6 passengers (2 in each row) in either the FS or lambda, you're not going to notice the extra CuFt of passenger space. Now if you put 8 in the lambda it's going to be tight, but you can't put 8 in the FS, but if you have 6 in each, you're going to have plenty of space in both.
So just looking at CuFt passenger space measurements can be misleading. And even if something "looks" bigger, that doesn't always mean that when you're in the seat you're getting any more space or are any more comfortable.
And who cares what they're called. They're vehicles that can hold a given amount of passengers and cargo.
Wow, I didn't even get a chance to reply, but everyone else did!
Any how, I do see your point, that having a bigger floor (wide, long) does make it easier to load vs. having more height and having to stack cargo.
This is why I felt my previous ride, a Forester, was better than a CR-V, even though the CR-V had more cubic feet. I could lay my stroller flat length-wise, while on the CR-V it took up the whole width of the cargo area, and you had to stack things on top of it.
Still, just how much do you really need? There's TONS of a space behind the 3rd row of a Sienna. The well is deep and very wide. There are tie downs all over the place. I keep bungees in the storage bin on the left to secure things, but honestly I mostly use them because there is TOO much space and you have to tie things down else they slide around.
Also, it's not just the total amount of space, but also the versatility. You can hide the 60 portion of the 40/60 seats, and have only a small well, so it's small and things don't roll around. Or reveal the 60 portion for a slightly bigger hole. Or lift up both seats for the big well. Or fold the entire 3rd row for a ton of space, and a nice box-shaped area, to boot.
With the Suburban, you do get a couple of extra cubic feet and a bigger floor (note: only when all 3 rows of seating are in use). But to expand that, you have to lift out one seat, and where do you put it? Take 'em both out and you now have 2 problems.
Plus, the seats themselves are too close to the floor. Adults sit with their knees in the chest. So a vehicle that huge ends up having just 4 comfortable seats. The middle of the 2nd row is too hard and the floor has a hump. The rears have no foot well.
Those are some pretty serious compromises to get 2.2 cubic feet behind the 3rd row and a slightly better shape to it. I won't even bring up fuel costs.
Plus, I have the 8 seat Sienna. I could take out the seat between my 2 kids and easily fit an oversized suitcase between them, and not have to stack it. I'm sure I could squeeze a suitcase bewtween the front seats if I had to as well, though space is so abundant I'm sure I'll never do that.
And I could seat 7 passengers comfortably 2+2+3. Or fold part of the 3rd row and seat them 2+3+2.
A van is just much more flexible.
I can fit a sheet of plywood on the floor, but better yet, I was able to fit a 4'x8' sheet of lattice panel without removing any seats at all. Talk about versatility. :shades:
I agree that minivans are the best for hauling max people and cargo with 3 exceptions: 1. Someone who truly goes offroad 2. Someone who needs a LOT of towing capability 3. Someone who is too insecure to be seen driving a minvan
I have to agree with you. I have a FS and a Volvo V70 wagon. The FS is no wagon. Doesn't even look like one when you park along side - never mind the driving differences. But, I guess based on the logic on this thread I also have two wagons. No wait, maybe three if you throw in my Range Rover - which has less cargo space than either of my wagons??
I don't tow, but I've cruised a lot of miles on Forest Service type roads (not to mention long gravel stretches like the Trans-Labrador) and I've often wished for a couple of more inches of ground clearance on my minivan.
The front overhang on my current one has trouble with minor dips and speed bumps around town.
I can't see how you can possibly say that he Pacifica does not look like a station wagon.
Well, I'll say it. The Pacifica does not look like a station wagon to me, if by wagon you mean things like the Passat, Legacy, Mazda6, or Volvo V40. The Pacifica is too tall, too bulky, too big and fat looking (like a CUV) to be that sort of wagon.
If we must split hairs, and on this forum that is a given, practically all "CUV"s are station wagons in essense. Just tall bulky ones. The one box design used to be a van, but with the beaks on modern minivans, there is no longer a signifcant savings in front overhang by going with a van. The two box design is station wagon (or if small enough, a "hatchback"), the three box is a sedan, and trucks have a bed--notwithstanding the EPA's weird regulations that call all sorts of cars "trucks"...like the Subaru Outback and PT Cruiser. Sure they are trucks.
It all gets silly ("your car is a wagon that looks like a mini-van and mine is a CUV, even though so-and-so thinks it is an SUV, nyah, nyah"). The FS styling may not be in line with some of the more popular CUV shapes now, but it is as much a CUV as any of the rest of them. You can trust that it will all change again soon enough. Dumb new categories. Passe styles. Soon enough most people won't want to be caught dead in the formerly popular CUV.
If are define a CUV as an unibody SUV, then you'd expect the same proportions and dimensions.
A CUV will get places where the FS and Pacifica can't. Maybe not Jeep style, in a rock-climbing kind of way, but at least able to get into a camping trail without scraping their sports car-like 5" of ground clearance (manufacturer's data).
An FWD Sienna has more ground-clearance (6.9") than both!!
I can always count on you Juice for a well thought out response. Others seem to become illiterate when a nerve is struck and fail to actually read what people write. Don't disagree with almost all of what you said. The point I think that we are pushing towards is that people love quoting all these cargo volume numbers published by the marketing boys, but they are only a rough guide. I really wanted the Sienna to be big enough for all our gear. On vacation in the past we have loaded all our gear into the XL without any planning or difficulty and then had to wrestle, repeatedly reload and finally put luggage in the passenger area when it didn't fit in the "trunk" of our full size minivan rental. Windstar, GMC whatever it was called (bigger one with the dutch doors) and yes, even a Sienna. Your recurring point is absolutely true - for hauling multiple passengers, the mini-van really can't be beat. I need AWD and want leather. Up here Toyota wants $52k for that. Remember, our $$ are almost at par now. So the CUV's are the only option for me.
I agree that minivans are the best for hauling max people and cargo with 3 exceptions: 1. Someone who truly goes offroad 2. Someone who needs a LOT of towing capability 3. Someone who is too insecure to be seen driving a minvan
Bang on with one qualifier which is why many people are here: 4 ish)Needs/wants AWD.
The Lambda's are 3 inches taller but also have 3 inches of extra ground clearance, so the whole argument for the extra 12.5CuFt doesn't seem right. BUT assuming it does, with the same headroom numbers on both, you would have to accept that the seats on the FS are mounted 3 inches lower to the ground , which means its passengers do not seat as upright as in the Outlook.
I can anticipate you arguing that they seat upright enough in the FS and that it is still comfortable, but the point here is that they sit *more* comfortably inside the Outlook.
That is not to say there is not a market for the FS or that it is a bad vehicle, just that it is in a different category.
"A CUV will get places where the FS and Pacifica can't. Maybe not Jeep style, in a rock-climbing kind of way, but at least able to get into a camping trail without scraping their sports car-like 5" of ground clearance (manufacturer's data)."
That is ridiculous and defeats the purpose of a CUV. CUV's are intended for on road stuff/people hauling capabilities with improved mpg from their SUV counterparts. If you want to compare ground clearance and trail ratings of the CUV crowd you have completely missed to boat on why people buy them. The FS or Pacifica for that matter will get into any park camp ground, traverse any graded fire road and be as capable in those arenas as any of the rest of them, handle deep snow, yadda, yadda, yadda...
The moving CUV target around here really seems counter productive. First you were talking about volume ratings to set up a mid and full size class system, now you want to define it by ground clearance, what's next tow ratings... by doing that we are right back where this cuv gene pool tried to differentiate itself from, the SUV.
definition of CUV = the people and stuff hauling capacity of a SUV, the profile of a SUV, significantly improved mileage than SUV, good overall on road performance with reduced roll over, elevated seating position(than sedans), unibody construction.
In their initial design brief towing and ground clearance are secondary to their primary purpose.
I guess the CX-9 must be in a different category too. Maybe the Lambdas are in their own category?? After all, they have that strange long wheelbase that gives them a different proportion than the others here. Maybe the Pacifica is a category??? What's the point? They will be cross-shopped anyway, and as this forum shows, different folks like different things. "It's not a CUV" is becoming like an insult. Sounds insane.
That's the part that confuses me with a lot of these new CUVs. 2-4 mpg better than a comparable SUV isn't significant in my book. I like the way most of them look and I'll probably like the way they'll drive when I am shopping for one in a couple of years. However, I can get an SUV for a good bit less cash and only really sacrifice some fuel econ which the lower purchase price should easily offset.
I guess I just expected more improvement in the mpg dept. but haven't seen it yet save for a couple of the models.
you would have to accept that the seats on the FS are mounted 3 inches lower to the ground , which means its passengers do not seat as upright as in the Outlook.
Wrong logic there. Just sit in 2nd row of a FS and then a Lamda and see for yourself. The seat bottoms are higher in relation to the FS, but at the same time the floor of the lambda is higher. And if you sat any more upright in the FS the seatback would be at 90 degrees...not too comfortable.
"The Lambda's are 3 inches taller but also have 3 inches of extra ground clearance"
tha only thing that proves is that the lambda driver has 3" more between his butt and the road not that the FS seat is mounted any lower making the rest of the comment moot and false as headroom numbers or overall numbers from floor to ceiling define how "upright" you might be able to sit in one vs. another.
3" wider does not make a different category than the lambda's. If you want a different category define it by curb weight and then by all means take your 5-900lb difference depending on options and models and call them heavy vs. wildly overweight not mid and full.
"I can anticipate you arguing that they seat upright enough in the FS and that it is still comfortable, but the point here is that they sit *more* comfortably inside the Outlook."
I will guarantee you won't sit any more or less upright than I do in my FS, this argument is pointless.
Give me overall interior volumes one vs. the other and you might have an argument to base a mid vs. full on but so until then you don't.
I can always count on you Juice for a well thought out response
Thanks. :shades:
finally put luggage in the passenger area when it didn't fit in the "trunk"
Agreed, I even mentioned that as an option. Just tie things down if you do so they're not projectiles in an accident.
Sienna does offer AWD, by the way, I think the only minivan that does now that Dodge dropped the option. Toyota even raised it a bit for extra clearance compared to the FWD model.
The US Dollar is WEAK, man, stinks for me! At one point I'd go to Brazil and trade for that currency and get 3.5 to 1, now it's closer to 1 to 1. :sick:
I don't want to come off offensive, just giving some facts
Actually you come across as angry. Not sure which of your nerves I stepped on, but go back and actually read my posts. I already made half your points for you. What part of "the XL is a monster which sucks gas" didn't you understand?
One place where the Yukon does win-Towing/ offroading. But from your post, I can see you don't really do a lot of that.
Where in my post did I give that away? Maybe my sentence structure told you that I wasn't a hardcore RV'er or off-roader?!? The only reason we own the XL is to tow our trailer. It's how we spend every summer vacation. I just came back from a month off and a 1500 mile trip through the Rockies. Oh, and I'm not dumb enough to buy a Yukon XL for offroading, but its does rack up hundreds of miles on gravel and broken, rutted ice covered roads every year. Next time, stay on the facts and spend less time making judgements and assesments about the author. That way you'll be less offensive.
Comments
It's really no contest. Of course.
Ah there you go again, thinking you bought a cargo van. ;-) I use my 8 passenger vehicle to haul 6-8 passengers so the only cargo volume that matters to me is the usable trunk behind the rear seat. In that setting, my Yukon Xl/Suburban's rear cargo slaps your Sienna silly, gives it a wedgie and sends it crying home to Momma. The printed numbers may make it look close, but it is difficult to effectively use a shallow and tall trunk like the Sienna has. To get all the claimed rear cargo room requires stacking your luggage over 5' high. A difficult feat, and not safe when stacking above the rear seats. As part of our decision process, we looked at whether the Sienna could take over all long haul duties other than towing, but quickly realized the usable trunk size was limited by it's fore-aft depth. There are a bunch of items we routinely throw in along with luggage without thinking in the Yukon XL that wouldn't fit in the Sienna. The dog and her crate are the most obvious. Still might get the Sienna, but the real cargo space won't allow it to become our vacation vehicle. Of course, none of the competition does much better. Ody may be, but not sure. The CUV's are universally much worse of course and any CUV we get will be a short hauler only.
TwinForce
j/k I was reigning in the hyperbole a little. Having loaded both, the statement that the Sienna has more cargo room may be accurate by some numbers, but doesn't reflect real world functionality. The XL is a monster which fulfills a different niche. Mine tows over 10,000lbs and sucks the gas to do it.
Funny, though they call it an SUV, I doubt it's ground clearance breaks 5".
I don't want to come off offensive, just giving some facts.
For instance, the Pilot has 70% of the passenger space of an Outlook/Acadia/Enclave. Are they really in the same category?
I am not sure I would consider the FS a CUV. Surely, its 200" in length and 3 rows of seating will put it in the same shopping list as minivans, the CX-9 and Lambdas, but it is really a slightly taller wagon (6" taller than the 500).
If you take my FS-as-a-wagon argument, GM still takes the honors (?!) for first large CUV. Toyota deserves the credit for the first mid-sized CUV (2001).
That was my point; they are full-sized. Other CUVs with 70% of its interior volume are mid-sized.
Length alone does not place the FS in the same category, the older Taurus wagons also had 200" in length (but no 3rd row of seats, I know). If all the FS measures were the same as in a lambda, there would be no missing 40+ cu ft of interior volume. There are clever ways of boosting legroom and headroom measurements, such as lifting the seat edges by an inch or making them lower to the floor, which eventually takes away from overall comfort.
Some people will surely make the point that they love their FS, that the interior room is just right, and that they don't miss more of it. But that is all beside the point that an FS has 30% less of that just-right space than a lambda.
If we stick with 200" length, 7 seats, and unibody as the category definers, then a minivan is a large CUV too.
Don't forget that you STILL have to remove the third row seats from the GM SUVs and store them somewhere as they will not fold into the floor. That is a total deal breaker for me no matter what the gas mileage is.
FWIW, the older Taurus had the third row jump seats available. Not as functional I know but could carry the kids.
and we have 20-25% less weight to haul around as well making them a little less ponderous and even easier to put in a parking space since that seems to be a benchmark around here lately. It's not that ford couldn't have made it a bit wider overall or carved out a bit more space on the interior but I'll still contend in the full size/3 row CUV crowd its the best combination of space vs. performance vs. economy of the crowd. The new T-reX loses a lot of that advantage as far as I'm concerned with the new drivetrain and pricing but that's a whole different discussion.
"If all the FS measures were the same as in a lambda, there would be no missing 40+ cu ft of interior volume. There are clever ways of boosting legroom and headroom measurements, such as lifting the seat edges by an inch or making them lower to the floor, which eventually takes away from overall comfort."
possibly but in the end they are not with the primary difference being the overall width of one vs. the other. Conversly all of those little tricks you speak of all help the interior volume/marketing numbers we love so much around here so who is really playing the numbers game, I'd argue GM is using your logic because of the overall length being the same. Personally I'm not sure there really is 40 cu ft of volume difference between the two after you start to look at the interior dimensions.
I have yet to find overall whole cabin volume numbers for the lambda's on the web, I think I found the FS one once but not sure where that one is. I'd be interested to see the overall numbers as a comparison as opposed to the segmented numbers that are published to compare, that might close the gap a bit but that's just a guess.
I think the FS and Pacifica are very similiar. The CX-9 was kind of in between, but should probably be lumped in with the full-sized ones. I have no experience with the VC because it was released after I was done car shopping.
That is not a knock on the FS or Pacifica. Not everyone needs or wants a giant land yahat.
BTW: I refer to all low-towing capacity SUV/CUVs as station wagons or minivans anway. My Outlook is just a better looking minivan. The FS and Pacifica are station wagons. Look at them.
Ford lists 85.5 cubic feet behind 1st row, the Outlook has 117, a 39% advantage. The Outlook is only 3 inches wider, a 4% difference. I'll leave it up to others to find the other 35%. If the numbers don't convince you, drive an Outlook to your Ford dealer and jump from one to the other without stopping to read legroom/headroom numbers.
I have and they aren't...if anything the pacifica looks like a chopped minivan with a nose job and the FS has the same profile proportions as a lambda so your assessment is lost on me at least.
I can understand minivan stigma every day of the week, for the life of me I don't get this determination to call the FS a station wagon as it's a CUV like the rest of them.
BTW - I'm far from having station wagon stigma as our other car is a passat wagon so that won't fly here as I enjoy wagon's, they just make sense...
And I just can't see how you can lump a cx9 into "full" size with its pitiful 3rd row accommodations.
To quantify it a bit the difference makes a rounded 32cu ft box 2'd x 4'w x 4't(or a box 3"w x 32'w x 32't) . Given their exterior dimensions being largely the same short of width(3" wider can't make up that much volume just behind the 1st row) I'm just not sure how they actually did that. To me something smells a bit in the numbers.
Taking the argument to the extreme, you can have the same headroom/legroom numbers in the backseat of a Civic as in a Pilot; just install the backseat two inches lower and the bottom cushion at an angle of 30 degrees with the chassis and you are done. The interior volume will still be less though.
Again, I don't see why people should feel stigmatized by driving a minivan, wagon or anything else. Get what you like and what fits your needs. This is not high school (hopefully) where you have to follow a crowd to fit in. (I never did much of that anyway) Do your research and buy what is best for you. Who cares about what symbol is on the hood. If it is a good car and you like it, who cares?
My good friend misses his old Metro. Not because it was a good car (it was a POS) but because he liked driving it and had a lot of fun in it.
Hence getting to my point to really understand the differences between these 2 or any of them for that matter one would need the overall interior volume to get to a comparison of apples to apples in the volume department. One can't categorize mid-size vs. full-size like you are trying to based on the 85.5cuft vs 117cuft. numbers alone.
Again, not saying the lambda isn't the space winner as that's a given, I just don't think the numbers add up to the extent that's quoted around here.
They DO look like station wagons. Well, the FS more than the Pacifica. The Pacifica is more miivanish. But the FS looks exactly like a wagon. Ford wants you to know this. That's why the new one is the TX.
for the reasons I already stated...
"Again, I don't see why people should feel stigmatized by driving a minivan...."
We know, we know, unfortunately we're not debating that point as people base the purchases of cars and everything else on all kinds of irrational as well as rational decisions.
Agreed 100%. Absolutely ridiculous that the redesigned Escalade/TahoeYukon still don't fold in the floor. The Expedition and Navigator (with power fold option) had this in 2003
because albook said so... OK that mystery is solved, I'll sleep better tonight knowing I have 2 wagons in the driveway as opposed to a wagon and a CUV... and ALL of the other CUV's aren't the modern iteration of wagons because??? nice try...
Wagons by definition are not stand alone models, they are the expanded versions of a sedan sharing the parts and styling of the sedans they are based on from the b-pillar forward, the dash and some interior appointments. Last I saw the FS & the 500 share no sheetmetal from the B pillar forward or back for that matter. Using your logic then sharing platforms makes the FS a station wagon vs a CUV. In light of that how come no one is sayng the edge is the "wagon" version of the fusion then since they share platform DNA, tell me that...
Ford has pissed up the marketing from day one and the revamp for me that will keep me from buying a T-reX, so the Ford rename argument holds no water with me.
As far as CuFt of passenger space...CuFt doesn't equal passenger comfort. It depends on where the CuFt is located. The lambda's roofline is straigt along the top, while the FS roofline slopes up toward the rear. Plus the lambdas are a few inches taller and wider than the FS. Just calculating .25 feet (3inches) higher x 5 feet wide passenger area x 10 feet long passenger = 12.5CuFt of extra space just from the height difference. Add to the a few more CuFt because the lambda's roof is straight and not sloped like the FS. Add to that another 10CuFt for the extra width of the lambda and you're at about 25CuFt of more passenger space in the lambda.
Even though my calculations are nowhere near being exact, you get the idea of how a few inches of width and height can add up to a lot of extra CuFt. But that doesn't necesarily equate to added passenger comfort. I said before that if you're carrying 6 passengers (2 in each row) in either the FS or lambda, you're not going to notice the extra CuFt of passenger space. Now if you put 8 in the lambda it's going to be tight, but you can't put 8 in the FS, but if you have 6 in each, you're going to have plenty of space in both.
So just looking at CuFt passenger space measurements can be misleading. And even if something "looks" bigger, that doesn't always mean that when you're in the seat you're getting any more space or are any more comfortable.
And who cares what they're called. They're vehicles that can hold a given amount of passengers and cargo.
Any how, I do see your point, that having a bigger floor (wide, long) does make it easier to load vs. having more height and having to stack cargo.
This is why I felt my previous ride, a Forester, was better than a CR-V, even though the CR-V had more cubic feet. I could lay my stroller flat length-wise, while on the CR-V it took up the whole width of the cargo area, and you had to stack things on top of it.
Still, just how much do you really need? There's TONS of a space behind the 3rd row of a Sienna. The well is deep and very wide. There are tie downs all over the place. I keep bungees in the storage bin on the left to secure things, but honestly I mostly use them because there is TOO much space and you have to tie things down else they slide around.
Also, it's not just the total amount of space, but also the versatility. You can hide the 60 portion of the 40/60 seats, and have only a small well, so it's small and things don't roll around. Or reveal the 60 portion for a slightly bigger hole. Or lift up both seats for the big well. Or fold the entire 3rd row for a ton of space, and a nice box-shaped area, to boot.
With the Suburban, you do get a couple of extra cubic feet and a bigger floor (note: only when all 3 rows of seating are in use). But to expand that, you have to lift out one seat, and where do you put it? Take 'em both out and you now have 2 problems.
Plus, the seats themselves are too close to the floor. Adults sit with their knees in the chest. So a vehicle that huge ends up having just 4 comfortable seats. The middle of the 2nd row is too hard and the floor has a hump. The rears have no foot well.
Those are some pretty serious compromises to get 2.2 cubic feet behind the 3rd row and a slightly better shape to it. I won't even bring up fuel costs.
Plus, I have the 8 seat Sienna. I could take out the seat between my 2 kids and easily fit an oversized suitcase between them, and not have to stack it. I'm sure I could squeeze a suitcase bewtween the front seats if I had to as well, though space is so abundant I'm sure I'll never do that.
And I could seat 7 passengers comfortably 2+2+3. Or fold part of the 3rd row and seat them 2+3+2.
A van is just much more flexible.
I can fit a sheet of plywood on the floor, but better yet, I was able to fit a 4'x8' sheet of lattice panel without removing any seats at all. Talk about versatility. :shades:
1. Someone who truly goes offroad
2. Someone who needs a LOT of towing capability
3. Someone who is too insecure to be seen driving a minvan
Especially #3.
The front overhang on my current one has trouble with minor dips and speed bumps around town.
A lift-kit may be required for my next one. :P
Well, I'll say it. The Pacifica does not look like a station wagon to me, if by wagon you mean things like the Passat, Legacy, Mazda6, or Volvo V40. The Pacifica is too tall, too bulky, too big and fat looking (like a CUV) to be that sort of wagon.
If we must split hairs, and on this forum that is a given, practically all "CUV"s are station wagons in essense. Just tall bulky ones. The one box design used to be a van, but with the beaks on modern minivans, there is no longer a signifcant savings in front overhang by going with a van. The two box design is station wagon (or if small enough, a "hatchback"), the three box is a sedan, and trucks have a bed--notwithstanding the EPA's weird regulations that call all sorts of cars "trucks"...like the Subaru Outback and PT Cruiser. Sure they are trucks.
It all gets silly ("your car is a wagon that looks like a mini-van and mine is a CUV, even though so-and-so thinks it is an SUV, nyah, nyah"). The FS styling may not be in line with some of the more popular CUV shapes now, but it is as much a CUV as any of the rest of them. You can trust that it will all change again soon enough. Dumb new categories. Passe styles. Soon enough most people won't want to be caught dead in the formerly popular CUV.
We already have an AWD Legacy for when it snows so we decided to stick with FWD this time for peak fuel mileage.
A CUV will get places where the FS and Pacifica can't. Maybe not Jeep style, in a rock-climbing kind of way, but at least able to get into a camping trail without scraping their sports car-like 5" of ground clearance (manufacturer's data).
An FWD Sienna has more ground-clearance (6.9") than both!!
Pacifica, to me, is a slightly modified minivan. At least that's how it seems. Maybe it's the rounded shape.
Freestyle is a tall wagon. Tall, big, but still a wagon. Nothing wrong with that. We own a Legacy wagon.
Who cares? I test drove both.
Your recurring point is absolutely true - for hauling multiple passengers, the mini-van really can't be beat. I need AWD and want leather. Up here Toyota wants $52k for that. Remember, our $$ are almost at par now. So the CUV's are the only option for me.
1. Someone who truly goes offroad
2. Someone who needs a LOT of towing capability
3. Someone who is too insecure to be seen driving a minvan
Bang on with one qualifier which is why many people are here:
4 ish)Needs/wants AWD.
I can anticipate you arguing that they seat upright enough in the FS and that it is still comfortable, but the point here is that they sit *more* comfortably inside the Outlook.
That is not to say there is not a market for the FS or that it is a bad vehicle, just that it is in a different category.
That is ridiculous and defeats the purpose of a CUV. CUV's are intended for on road stuff/people hauling capabilities with improved mpg from their SUV counterparts. If you want to compare ground clearance and trail ratings of the CUV crowd you have completely missed to boat on why people buy them. The FS or Pacifica for that matter will get into any park camp ground, traverse any graded fire road and be as capable in those arenas as any of the rest of them, handle deep snow, yadda, yadda, yadda...
The moving CUV target around here really seems counter productive. First you were talking about volume ratings to set up a mid and full size class system, now you want to define it by ground clearance, what's next tow ratings... by doing that we are right back where this cuv gene pool tried to differentiate itself from, the SUV.
definition of CUV = the people and stuff hauling capacity of a SUV, the profile of a SUV, significantly improved mileage than SUV, good overall on road performance with reduced roll over, elevated seating position(than sedans), unibody construction.
In their initial design brief towing and ground clearance are secondary to their primary purpose.
That's the part that confuses me with a lot of these new CUVs. 2-4 mpg better than a comparable SUV isn't significant in my book. I like the way most of them look and I'll probably like the way they'll drive when I am shopping for one in a couple of years. However, I can get an SUV for a good bit less cash and only really sacrifice some fuel econ which the lower purchase price should easily offset.
I guess I just expected more improvement in the mpg dept. but haven't seen it yet save for a couple of the models.
Wrong logic there. Just sit in 2nd row of a FS and then a Lamda and see for yourself. The seat bottoms are higher in relation to the FS, but at the same time the floor of the lambda is higher. And if you sat any more upright in the FS the seatback would be at 90 degrees...not too comfortable.
tha only thing that proves is that the lambda driver has 3" more between his butt and the road not that the FS seat is mounted any lower making the rest of the comment moot and false as headroom numbers or overall numbers from floor to ceiling define how "upright" you might be able to sit in one vs. another.
3" wider does not make a different category than the lambda's. If you want a different category define it by curb weight and then by all means take your 5-900lb difference depending on options and models and call them heavy vs. wildly overweight not mid and full.
"I can anticipate you arguing that they seat upright enough in the FS and that it is still comfortable, but the point here is that they sit *more* comfortably inside the Outlook."
I will guarantee you won't sit any more or less upright than I do in my FS, this argument is pointless.
Give me overall interior volumes one vs. the other and you might have an argument to base a mid vs. full on but so until then you don't.
Thanks. :shades:
finally put luggage in the passenger area when it didn't fit in the "trunk"
Agreed, I even mentioned that as an option. Just tie things down if you do so they're not projectiles in an accident.
Sienna does offer AWD, by the way, I think the only minivan that does now that Dodge dropped the option. Toyota even raised it a bit for extra clearance compared to the FWD model.
The US Dollar is WEAK, man, stinks for me! At one point I'd go to Brazil and trade for that currency and get 3.5 to 1, now it's closer to 1 to 1. :sick:
Actually you come across as angry. Not sure which of your nerves I stepped on, but go back and actually read my posts. I already made half your points for you. What part of "the XL is a monster which sucks gas" didn't you understand?
One place where the Yukon does win-Towing/ offroading. But from your post, I can see you don't really do a lot of that.
Where in my post did I give that away? Maybe my sentence structure told you that I wasn't a hardcore RV'er or off-roader?!? The only reason we own the XL is to tow our trailer. It's how we spend every summer vacation. I just came back from a month off and a 1500 mile trip through the Rockies. Oh, and I'm not dumb enough to buy a Yukon XL for offroading, but its does rack up hundreds of miles on gravel and broken, rutted ice covered roads every year.
Next time, stay on the facts and spend less time making judgements and assesments about the author. That way you'll be less offensive.
Quite the opposite. Where the vans were simply uncompetitive, the Lambdas are a no-excuses great effort. Not perfect but very competent.
Name me another "tall wagon" that has a 3rd row able to hold adults...that's the difference between a tall wagon and a CUV...the 3rd row.