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.
can understand what you are saying to a point but if the seat is not going to function properly on the test rig I'm not sure how it would improve with the seat being in the vehicle. This testing method assures an apple to apples assessment of the seating and its performance during a crash.
maybe you are right though considering like you said the crash structure and its ability to absorb...hmmmm... thinking about that one.
I guess this is one of the aspects where the lambda's massive weight may help. When loaded, it is unlikely that they will move in the event of a rear end crash in bumper-to-bumper traffic...unless the other vehicle is also a lambda or a dump truck ;-)
However, I couldn't find the actual tests for the lambdas in the IIHS page for Saturn/GMC/Buick. Someone in another thread inferred the results for 2nd and 3rd rows would be bad because the head restraints cannot be adjusted.
I guess we should qualify these results, and mention the seats alone and headrests specifically offer better protection.
But yeah, we should not ignore the overall physics, and certainly a heavier vehicle will move less when rear ended in this manner. Then there are the crumple zones, seat tracks, belt pre-tensioners, etc.
I just don't think we can conclude whether this means the overall vehicle will be safe/unsafe in a rear end collision.
I will check at home to see if they can or can't be adjusted. I would find it very off if they could not because every car I have ever owned or cared to check had adjustable headrests.
So let me get this straight: For example, a 35 mph crash into the rear of the Acadia might not hurt the occupant as much as a 35 mph crash into the rear of, let's say, a Mazda CX-9, because of the differences in energy absorption (in this example the Acadia absorbs more of the impact). You might have to crash at 40 mph into the Acadia to get the same level of "hurt" as in the Mazda if it were hit at 35 mph.
So if that's the case, isn't the test jig is the only way to compare the same level of force accurately? Sure, the rear of the Acadia might have to be hit harder to subject the seats to the same level of force as the Mazda, as mentioned in my example above, but the point is that once the seats are subjected to the same forces, which ones protect you better?
It may be easier to understand if we exaggerate the weight difference.
If an Outlook is rear ended by a Geo Metro, you wouldn't even feel it.
Just kidding.
But the Geo comes in with a certain amount of kinetic energy (mass times speed). If the Outlook weighs 3 times as much, then basic physics will tell you that even if the Metro transfer 100% of that kinetic energy to the Outlook, it would only move forward at 1/3rd the speed of the Metro.
Physicists out there - does my math sound right?
I guess I'm applying common sense mixed with a hazy memory of high school physics, but you get the point.
Now, reverse that. The Outlook hits the Metro. I hope the Metro driver has good life insurance.
Yet the IIHS study might find that the Metro's headrests are properly positioned, and possibly give it a higher rating than the Outlook got based solely on the seats and headrests.
Not exactly, kinetic energy is 1/2 times the mass times the velocity squared. In this case, momentum (mass times velocity) is conserved. If a car rear ends an identical car, both cars equally share the impact. If one car weighs twice the other, the lighter car absorbs twice the impact. ie 2/3 vs 1/3 the total impact.
Let's say the Metro's bumper get stuck under the rear-axle of the Outlook.
Assuming the momentum is totally transfered to the new body (crushed-Metro and dented-Outlook,) doesn't it mean the new body would have 1/4 of the original speed because it has 4 times the original mass with the same momentum?
Note the ads for the Outlook; five star front and side crash ratings, but no mention of rear crash ratings. I would like a clarification concerning that issue. The last few posts have provided some information concerning this topic, but they lack details. Ask your dealership to show you the results for a rear crash test. My local dealership did not want to talk about it. I like these cars, but when you combine the high price with the questionable rear crash tests results, other models may provide a better overall value.
Very close, but no cigar. The law of conservation of momentum in a collision states that the total momentum of the 2 vehicles just before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the vehicles just after the collision. If the Outlook weighs 4 times the Metro and we assume that the Outlook is at zero velocity with no brakes applied when the Metro rear ends it, the solution would be mV + 4m(0) = mV = 5m(both vehicles mass here)V/5. Both vehicles would be moving at the same speed after impact since the bumpers are stuck. The velocity of both vehicles would be 1/5 the velocity of the Metro just before impact.
The heavier vehicle definitely gets the better end when there is an impact, but a lighter vehicle might be able to avoid the impact due to better handling. Take your pick as to whether you want to survive an accident or avoid it entirely.
I just completed a chat with the Saturn web site. They have no information on rear crash tests for the Outlook, but other models such as the Taurus X and Veracruz provide this information. This is strange! I really hope GM is not trying to hide something from the public.
I stand correct, the original example from [ateixeira] listed the Outlook at 3x the Metro's weight, which is why I calculated the speed of the combined wreckage at 1/4 of the original Metro's speed.
Not sure about the relationship between size and the likelihood of avoiding an accident. The average driver lacks the skills to perform an emergency maneuver on pure reflex. A taller SUV may allow you to notice a dangerous situation before other drivers sitting lower to the ground.
""Take your pick as to whether you want to survive an accident or avoid it entirely"
hmmmmmm, let's take a minute to let that one sink in and think about it..."
Yup, that's the "small car salesman" standard pitch. Personally I would prefer to avoid AND survive.
The European Prius was successfully crash tested against a Toyota Land Cruiser. However, I don't consider a Prius particularly maneuverable - designed for MPG, not speed. But the point is it's lighter weight (3000 lbs) still allowed for protection from a 5000 lb vehicle.
You want a more extreme example go to youtube and find the smart car crash test videos if you want to see intelligent design at work as opposed to relying on mass protecting you.
Let's not try to get into that small car big car who is safer discussion because you'll end up with the same 2 points. 1) The small car advocate will tell you his car can avoid accidents better, although I don't know how you avoid a huge SUV ramming you from the rear on the highway because the SUV driver wasn't paying attention.
2) The big SUV advocate will quote a lot of physics, ignore roll-over potential, but then if everyone was driving Hummers than who is safe.
So the small car advocates will try to make the SUV owners feel guilty and vice versa...so lets not go there...please.
UM-UHHH why are we discussing this? Back to the crossover discussion.
Let me help get started. Pics of the new Pilot have surfaced. They say it's roughly the same size. Will it be able to hold it's own in this miracle grow market? Of course it will do decent. It's a Honda, and in my oppinion, Hondas only sell on reputation. But will it really compete?
Ah yes, the Pilot. Where have you seen the new pics?
If this new Pilot has many of the same features as the MDX, offers cylinder deactivation, is slightly bigger than the new Highlander, and sells in the $35k range, then I think it might sell rather well!
The SUV to beat at the moment is the Acadia, and the Pilot can only do that by increasing its size somewhat, and offering a more powerful engine. Problem is that it won't likely be for sale until Spring '08, which seems so, so far away...
with that kind of hp advantage I'd think you'd me more than a tenth or 2 faster off the line but when you look at torque its a dead heat hence no real acceleration advantage
I thought I'd already disproved that old wives' tale.
It's not ENGINE horsepower that is proportional to acceleration, it's horsepower AT THE WHEELS. Which means you can affect it by gearing.
When you go through all the math, it boils down to this simple rule: more horsepower (per pound) gives better acceleration. It doesn't matter how you get that horsepower, either (torque or rpm), because it's the PRODUCT that matters.
To settle the discussion about lambda's total interior space, some Enclave stats:
Passenger Volume 154 cu.ft. From other source, we had 117 cu.ft. behind first row Interior Cargo Volume w/Seats Folded 67.5 cu.ft. (which I presume is 2nd row) Interior Cargo Volume 18.9 cu.ft.
For reference, an Odyssey has 168.3 total, 147.4 behind first row and over 40 for cargo volume.
A Taurus X: passenger volume 146/85.2/47/15.8
It seems the Taurus X is not far behind in overall interior volume, but the fold-flat seats in the lambda's make much better usage of interior space.
I guess that clears the 32 cu.ft. (117 - 85.2) disparity between interior volumes for Taurus X and Lambda, as they are *cargo* volume numbers and not passenger volume numbers.
Did the trunk in the Taurus X get smaller than in the Freestyle? I though it was more like 19+ and not 15.8, but I got the number from Ford's spec-sheet.
I looked at them last night and could not find a height adjuster in either the 2nd or 3rd row headrests. This was dissapointing. However, I sat in both rows of seats and the top of the headrest was about even to the top of my head in both rows (the same in fact). So, I do not have any worries about my children being protected for quite a long time. I am about 5'9" ~ 5'10" so unless you are well over 6 feet, it should not be an issue. There are also airbags back there as well. I would think they would deploy if you were hit by somebody going 20 mph or more.
BTW: Drivers and passenger are adjustable. So put the tall person you like the most in the front seat with you.
...is that "chopped up and stuffed into a garbage can" volume or is it freedom to move volume?
LOL
You probably need 20+ cu.ft. for some comfort inside a car. Hip and shoulder room cannot be faked, you need real volume inside the vehicle, but headroom and legroom can be optimized by mounting the seats lower to the floor and lifting the edge of the bottom seats. None of the vehicles discussed in this thread (with the exception of the Metro) falls into this example, but they will give you that cramped knee-to-the-chest feel while sitting in the back.
Keep something in mind - we're talking about being rear ended. Manueverability doesn't matter, in most cases you are being blindly rear-ended by the other car.
My point is that you can only compare crash test results for vehicles of similar mass.
I believe IIHS goes as far as stating that the results can be compared among vehicles within 400 lbs of each other.
Along this subject, there is a new Forbes article regarding automobile safety, with IIHS communications director Russ Rader. There was a link to this article on the Yahoo Finance page. Here are some excerpts:
-----------
Among the various crash tests the IIHS performs on new vehicles, according to Rader, they see the widest range of results in those with side-impact and rear whiplash protection.
"What makes a vehicle unsafe today is a lack of side-impact protection," he says. "Whiplash is not a life-threatening injury but head injuries [from a side impact] are commonly life-threatening."
Side-curtain airbags have been shown to greatly increase the chances of surviving a classic "T-bone" side-impact accident, such as when the other vehicle runs a stoplight, and depending on the design, they can also increase the chances of surviving a rollover.
Along with side airbags, a vehicle also needs a well-built side structure to withstand a strong blow from vehicles of varying heights, says Rader.
Which leads to another major point: "Size and weight are very important aspects of safety," he says. "The laws of physics always apply in a crash. That means that people in smaller and lighter vehicles are always at a disadvantage in crashes with other vehicles."
In single-vehicle crashes, the weight advantage isn't as pronounced, but the statistics still point in favor of larger, if not heavier vehicles, he says.
However, John Linkov, managing editor of Consumer Reports, says that smaller and lighter vehicles aren't necessarily more dangerous. In many cases, they may offer handling and maneuverability advantages to help avoid accidents.
Even though stability control was only offered in some of the more expensive sport-utility vehicles a few years ago, Rader says that its impact is already easily seen in the Institute's yearly list of vehicles with the lowest death rates.
The purpose of both these vehicles is to serve the needs of families who like sedans but need more space for things like traveling. These vehicles are basically station wagons, with large third rows.
This is my first time posting to this forum. Here's our dilema - We want to replace our Toyota Sienna with a SUV type of vehicle. I am a very picky consumer - in fact the Sienna meets all of our needs (Cargo room, For Real third row room Seating, Safety, Reliability, etc.). The vehicles that are on our short-list are the Pilot, Highlander, Veracruz (all seem tiny behind the 2nd seat).
The Acadia seems to be the "Right" vehicle for my family of 5. It's not a minivan, but not a Surburban either. However, I have not owned a GM product for years because of reliability mainly. Is this the right vehicle? It looks like it could be, but it's still GM and I have read many of these discussions and I am not satisfied in what I am reading. Who can calm my fears about GM or offer a better alternative for my family? Thanks!!
Before I even answer that, why not another Sienna? As you said it meets all your needs, and the 3.5l engine was a significant upgrade.
But I digress. GM does offer a 5/100 powertrain warranty to lessen your concern.
I drove an Outlook and liked it, just consider the poor visibility. You're giving up a bit of space, some gas mileage, and big windows to follow the crossover trend.
I think GM has a very good powertrain and suspension, but the interior quality is still subpar.
For instance, there is not a solid floor pan beneath the 3rd row. On an Outlook I drove, they just stretched the carpet over the seat tracks. Whenever we entered the 3rd row to seat our two-year olds and stepped between the tracks, we could feel the carpet sagging.
That is just one example, but we also were not pleased with the steering wheel, which lacked the same thickness and gripping pattern you find on a Honda or Nissan. GM could just have flat out copied one of those.
The plastic buttons for volume control almost jiggled when we touched them and a the lid atop the dash required us to unstuck it to check the volume of the compartment beneath it (nicely padded with velvet, though).
The worst part was an intermittent noise coming from the dash (the salesperson assured us someone had "mistreated" the car during a test drive.)
The Outlook performed poorly on the JD powers initial quality assessment, with 2 out 5 stars.
All that said, I am still looking into an Enclave because the only other vehicle with similarly sized interior dimensions, the Taurus X, did not perform any better and doesn't look as good (IMHO).
I know that this is just one persons experience, but I have owned 2 previous Saturns for a combined 15 years and 250k miles and I can count the number of non-maintenance repairs for both cars on one hand. It also comes with the already mentioned 5/100k powertrain and 3/36k bumper-to-bumper warranties.
I disagree that you lose a bunch of mileage with the lambdas. We get around 17mpg for city driving and around 25mpg on the highway. That is on par with other minivans and better than any non-hybrid SUV.
I have fit 4 adults and 3 children (including 2 carseats) in it and we have 2nd row captain's chairs. That was for a 1200 mile trip and nobody complained about the seating being tight.
I do agree that if pure hauling capacity is a major concern, get a minivan. They can't be beat without going to a monster SUV. Out of the CUV crowd, the lambdas are the biggest and I would not consider one without the back-up sensors. The rear window is useless for visibility backing up.
Still, I'm getting significantly better mileage. My around town average matches your highway average. To be fair I didn't get the AWD model, though.
I believe GM's 3.6l engine is used in the CTS and SRX, so it might be useful to research reliability history on those models. The 6 speed auto is fairly new, though.
The Outlook I test drove didn't have a backup cam, but I agree it would be absolutely necessary. I actually backed up over a curb while trying to park the Outlook. :surprise:
All that said, I am still looking into an Enclave because the only other vehicle with similarly sized interior dimensions, the Taurus X, did not perform any better and doesn't look as good (IMHO).
Your link is to the FS and not the Taurus X. Have they even tested it yet? Actally, both were below average but the Ford was better than the Outlook averaging 2.56 stars to the Saturn's 2.33.
We are on our second GMC Yukon XL. Our 00 was okay, but it had more mechanical issues than all our other vehicles ever owned combined. One Honda, 2 Nissans, 2 Toyos and now a VW and a Subaru. Fit and finish on the 00 was behind the imports. Our 'newsed' 04 XL we just bought is better in that regard. Why did we buy again? It's our only choice for 7 passengers and heavy towing capacity. Hard to be sure how things may apply from full-size SUV to CUV so YMMV.
The R series I had previously considered got smacked by JD also. Only 2.33 average score. Wonder if the bar is higher for the premium models? If scores come from the consumer, I'd expect they would be. A MB owner will be less forgiving than a Saturn buyer I expect.
There was no information about the Taurus X but I think they only differ in the front fascia and powertrain, maybe not a good approximation. Ford fared very well with the Edge, which may be a good sign.
I didn't consider "Green efficiency" a measure of quality, which is why I considered the results the same.
"Did the trunk in the Taurus X get smaller than in the Freestyle? I though it was more like 19+ and not 15.8, but I got the number from Ford's spec-sheet."
Actually the FS is around 22 cu Ft behind the third row, if one can call that a "trunk" in a station wagon. I suspect that Ford is no longer counting the "well" into which the 3rd seat folds. I don't know why this would be true, unless they put in a "floor" back there for some private storage or something.
Explorer gets 3 stars, Mountaineer gets 5? Across the board the scores are different in almost every category by 1 or even 2 stars, even powertrain - mechanical?!
They're CLONES! The mechanicals are identical.
That alone proves the data useless.
Don't mean to shoot the messenger, so thanks for the link, Volkov.
The data is filled out by the owners, but aren't there some differences though between your two examples?
For instance, an Enclave owner may rate its powertrain as better than an Outlook owner would, because "it is quieter". In reality the sound insulation would be responsible for the impression of a smoother engine.
That might explain very minor differences in NVH. I can also accept that some materials are better.
But a radical difference like that? It's as if the vehicles have nothing in common whatsoever.
If it were at least the Lincoln Aviator, which has a different engine entirely, and much different materials, I might accept it. But a Mercury? It's a Ford with a Mercury badge pasted over it. They're really not any different.
Your points ar why I bothered to type in the Acadia results as well as the Outlook. Plus you need to get into the mind of the owners. As I alluded to, the same score for an Outlook versus the R series M-B w.r.t. fit and finish issues may not reflect the same quality. If I stretched my budget to get the Mercedes I would be much less forgiving than if I bought the GM along with its $$ savings.
Explorer gets 3 stars, Mountaineer gets 5? Across the board the scores are different in almost every category by 1 or even 2 stars, even powertrain - mechanical?!
They're CLONES! The mechanicals are identical.
Actually the Explorer has a better 4WD system than the 'neer. You can choose Auto, 4X4 High, and 4X4 Low in the Expy while the Mountaineer is stuck with just Auto.
The most concerning thing about the ratings is that the Mountaineer is rated higher by them in the "Powertrain quality-design" category. How can it be better if it is a stripped down version of the Explorer's system? :confuse:
Comments
maybe you are right though considering like you said the crash structure and its ability to absorb...hmmmm... thinking about that one.
However, I couldn't find the actual tests for the lambdas in the IIHS page for Saturn/GMC/Buick. Someone in another thread inferred the results for 2nd and 3rd rows would be bad because the head restraints cannot be adjusted.
But yeah, we should not ignore the overall physics, and certainly a heavier vehicle will move less when rear ended in this manner. Then there are the crumple zones, seat tracks, belt pre-tensioners, etc.
I just don't think we can conclude whether this means the overall vehicle will be safe/unsafe in a rear end collision.
So if that's the case, isn't the test jig is the only way to compare the same level of force accurately? Sure, the rear of the Acadia might have to be hit harder to subject the seats to the same level of force as the Mazda, as mentioned in my example above, but the point is that once the seats are subjected to the same forces, which ones protect you better?
I'm pretty sure airbags won't go off in a rear collision. Maybe the sides and/or curtains if hit at the right angle but the fronts stay put IIRC.
It may be easier to understand if we exaggerate the weight difference.
If an Outlook is rear ended by a Geo Metro, you wouldn't even feel it.
Just kidding.
But the Geo comes in with a certain amount of kinetic energy (mass times speed). If the Outlook weighs 3 times as much, then basic physics will tell you that even if the Metro transfer 100% of that kinetic energy to the Outlook, it would only move forward at 1/3rd the speed of the Metro.
Physicists out there - does my math sound right?
I guess I'm applying common sense mixed with a hazy memory of high school physics, but you get the point.
Now, reverse that. The Outlook hits the Metro. I hope the Metro driver has good life insurance.
Yet the IIHS study might find that the Metro's headrests are properly positioned, and possibly give it a higher rating than the Outlook got based solely on the seats and headrests.
Assuming the momentum is totally transfered to the new body (crushed-Metro and dented-Outlook,) doesn't it mean the new body would have 1/4 of the original speed because it has 4 times the original mass with the same momentum?
The heavier vehicle definitely gets the better end when there is an impact, but a lighter vehicle might be able to avoid the impact due to better handling. Take your pick as to whether you want to survive an accident or avoid it entirely.
Not sure about the relationship between size and the likelihood of avoiding an accident. The average driver lacks the skills to perform an emergency maneuver on pure reflex. A taller SUV may allow you to notice a dangerous situation before other drivers sitting lower to the ground.
hmmmmmm, let's take a minute to let that one sink in and think about it...
hmmmmmm, let's take a minute to let that one sink in and think about it..."
Yup, that's the "small car salesman" standard pitch. Personally I would prefer to avoid AND survive.
The European Prius was successfully crash tested against a Toyota Land Cruiser. However, I don't consider a Prius particularly maneuverable - designed for MPG, not speed. But the point is it's lighter weight (3000 lbs) still allowed for protection from a 5000 lb vehicle.
1) The small car advocate will tell you his car can avoid accidents better, although I don't know how you avoid a huge SUV ramming you from the rear on the highway because the SUV driver wasn't paying attention.
2) The big SUV advocate will quote a lot of physics, ignore roll-over potential, but then if everyone was driving Hummers than who is safe.
So the small car advocates will try to make the SUV owners feel guilty and vice versa...so lets not go there...please.
Let me help get started. Pics of the new Pilot have surfaced. They say it's roughly the same size. Will it be able to hold it's own in this miracle grow market? Of course it will do decent. It's a Honda, and in my oppinion, Hondas only sell on reputation. But will it really compete?
If this new Pilot has many of the same features as the MDX, offers cylinder deactivation, is slightly bigger than the new Highlander, and sells in the $35k range, then I think it might sell rather well!
The SUV to beat at the moment is the Acadia, and the Pilot can only do that by increasing its size somewhat, and offering a more powerful engine. Problem is that it won't likely be for sale until Spring '08, which seems so, so far away...
The Pacifica looks like an overgrown hatchback.
The Freestyle looks like a tall wagon (which is what it is).
Seems a bit low, especially if those were FWD.
I typically get 21 mpg in my AWD.
I thought I'd already disproved that old wives' tale.
It's not ENGINE horsepower that is proportional to acceleration, it's horsepower AT THE WHEELS. Which means you can affect it by gearing.
When you go through all the math, it boils down to this simple rule: more horsepower (per pound) gives better acceleration. It doesn't matter how you get that horsepower, either (torque or rpm), because it's the PRODUCT that matters.
Spy photo: 2009 Honda Pilot caught testing at night
That should show you everything you need to know.
Passenger Volume 154 cu.ft.
From other source, we had 117 cu.ft. behind first row
Interior Cargo Volume w/Seats Folded 67.5 cu.ft. (which I presume is 2nd row)
Interior Cargo Volume 18.9 cu.ft.
For reference, an Odyssey has 168.3 total, 147.4 behind first row and over 40 for cargo volume.
A Taurus X: passenger volume 146/85.2/47/15.8
It seems the Taurus X is not far behind in overall interior volume, but the fold-flat seats in the lambda's make much better usage of interior space.
I guess that clears the 32 cu.ft. (117 - 85.2) disparity between interior volumes for Taurus X and Lambda, as they are *cargo* volume numbers and not passenger volume numbers.
Did the trunk in the Taurus X get smaller than in the Freestyle? I though it was more like 19+ and not 15.8, but I got the number from Ford's spec-sheet.
<Trivia Break>The typical adult male occupies less than 3 cubic feet.</Trivia Break>
Now back to our regularly scheduled program.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
BTW: Drivers and passenger are adjustable. So put the tall person you like the most in the front seat with you.
So, is that "chopped up and stuffed into a garbage can" volume or is it freedom to move volume?
LOL
You probably need 20+ cu.ft. for some comfort inside a car. Hip and shoulder room cannot be faked, you need real volume inside the vehicle, but headroom and legroom can be optimized by mounting the seats lower to the floor and lifting the edge of the bottom seats. None of the vehicles discussed in this thread (with the exception of the Metro) falls into this example, but they will give you that cramped knee-to-the-chest feel while sitting in the back.
Ah, yes, but according to CNN, the space occupied by a typical American male is growing every 5 years! :sick:
Keep something in mind - we're talking about being rear ended. Manueverability doesn't matter, in most cases you are being blindly rear-ended by the other car.
My point is that you can only compare crash test results for vehicles of similar mass.
I believe IIHS goes as far as stating that the results can be compared among vehicles within 400 lbs of each other.
-----------
Among the various crash tests the IIHS performs on new vehicles, according to Rader, they see the widest range of results in those with side-impact and rear whiplash protection.
"What makes a vehicle unsafe today is a lack of side-impact protection," he says. "Whiplash is not a life-threatening injury but head injuries [from a side impact] are commonly life-threatening."
Side-curtain airbags have been shown to greatly increase the chances of surviving a classic "T-bone" side-impact accident, such as when the other vehicle runs a stoplight, and depending on the design, they can also increase the chances of surviving a rollover.
Along with side airbags, a vehicle also needs a well-built side structure to withstand a strong blow from vehicles of varying heights, says Rader.
Which leads to another major point: "Size and weight are very important aspects of safety," he says. "The laws of physics always apply in a crash. That means that people in smaller and lighter vehicles are always at a disadvantage in crashes with other vehicles."
In single-vehicle crashes, the weight advantage isn't as pronounced, but the statistics still point in favor of larger, if not heavier vehicles, he says.
However, John Linkov, managing editor of Consumer Reports, says that smaller and lighter vehicles aren't necessarily more dangerous. In many cases, they may offer handling and maneuverability advantages to help avoid accidents.
Even though stability control was only offered in some of the more expensive sport-utility vehicles a few years ago, Rader says that its impact is already easily seen in the Institute's yearly list of vehicles with the lowest death rates.
The Acadia seems to be the "Right" vehicle for my family of 5. It's not a minivan, but not a Surburban either. However, I have not owned a GM product for years because of reliability mainly. Is this the right vehicle? It looks like it could be, but it's still GM and I have read many of these discussions and I am not satisfied in what I am reading. Who can calm my fears about GM or offer a better alternative for my family? Thanks!!
But I digress. GM does offer a 5/100 powertrain warranty to lessen your concern.
I drove an Outlook and liked it, just consider the poor visibility. You're giving up a bit of space, some gas mileage, and big windows to follow the crossover trend.
For instance, there is not a solid floor pan beneath the 3rd row. On an Outlook I drove, they just stretched the carpet over the seat tracks. Whenever we entered the 3rd row to seat our two-year olds and stepped between the tracks, we could feel the carpet sagging.
That is just one example, but we also were not pleased with the steering wheel, which lacked the same thickness and gripping pattern you find on a Honda or Nissan. GM could just have flat out copied one of those.
The plastic buttons for volume control almost jiggled when we touched them and a the lid atop the dash required us to unstuck it to check the volume of the compartment beneath it (nicely padded with velvet, though).
The worst part was an intermittent noise coming from the dash (the salesperson assured us someone had "mistreated" the car during a test drive.)
The Outlook performed poorly on the JD powers initial quality assessment, with 2 out 5 stars.
All that said, I am still looking into an Enclave because the only other vehicle with similarly sized interior dimensions, the Taurus X, did not perform any better and doesn't look as good (IMHO).
I disagree that you lose a bunch of mileage with the lambdas. We get around 17mpg for city driving and around 25mpg on the highway. That is on par with other minivans and better than any non-hybrid SUV.
I have fit 4 adults and 3 children (including 2 carseats) in it and we have 2nd row captain's chairs. That was for a 1200 mile trip and nobody complained about the seating being tight.
I do agree that if pure hauling capacity is a major concern, get a minivan. They can't be beat without going to a monster SUV. Out of the CUV crowd, the lambdas are the biggest and I would not consider one without the back-up sensors. The rear window is useless for visibility backing up.
Still, I'm getting significantly better mileage. My around town average matches your highway average. To be fair I didn't get the AWD model, though.
I believe GM's 3.6l engine is used in the CTS and SRX, so it might be useful to research reliability history on those models. The 6 speed auto is fairly new, though.
The Outlook I test drove didn't have a backup cam, but I agree it would be absolutely necessary. I actually backed up over a curb while trying to park the Outlook. :surprise:
Having said that I still enjoyed it a lot.
Your link is to the FS and not the Taurus X. Have they even tested it yet? Actally, both were below average but the Ford was better than the Outlook averaging 2.56 stars to the Saturn's 2.33.
We are on our second GMC Yukon XL. Our 00 was okay, but it had more mechanical issues than all our other vehicles ever owned combined. One Honda, 2 Nissans, 2 Toyos and now a VW and a Subaru. Fit and finish on the 00 was behind the imports. Our 'newsed' 04 XL we just bought is better in that regard. Why did we buy again? It's our only choice for 7 passengers and heavy towing capacity. Hard to be sure how things may apply from full-size SUV to CUV so YMMV.
I much prefer their Durability Study. Of course that includes 5 year old models, most discontinued. Good for shopping used!
I didn't consider "Green efficiency" a measure of quality, which is why I considered the results the same.
Car and driver has an Enclave on their long-term fleet. Maybe they will have a good verdict within the next two months:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/13329/rants-and-raves-2008-buick-enclave.ht- ml?al=116
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/segment-quality-ratings/Midsize-Multi-Activity-Vehi- cle
A useful page for all our discussions. AND yes, before anyone else starts another debate, not the final word on anything.
Actually the FS is around 22 cu Ft behind the third row, if one can call that a "trunk" in a station wagon. I suspect that Ford is no longer counting the "well" into which the 3rd seat folds. I don't know why this would be true, unless they put in a "floor" back there for some private storage or something.
Explorer gets 3 stars, Mountaineer gets 5? Across the board the scores are different in almost every category by 1 or even 2 stars, even powertrain - mechanical?!
They're CLONES! The mechanicals are identical.
That alone proves the data useless.
Don't mean to shoot the messenger, so thanks for the link, Volkov.
For instance, an Enclave owner may rate its powertrain as better than an Outlook owner would, because "it is quieter". In reality the sound insulation would be responsible for the impression of a smoother engine.
But a radical difference like that? It's as if the vehicles have nothing in common whatsoever.
If it were at least the Lincoln Aviator, which has a different engine entirely, and much different materials, I might accept it. But a Mercury? It's a Ford with a Mercury badge pasted over it. They're really not any different.
Explorer gets 3 stars, Mountaineer gets 5? Across the board the scores are different in almost every category by 1 or even 2 stars, even powertrain - mechanical?!
They're CLONES! The mechanicals are identical.
Actually the Explorer has a better 4WD system than the 'neer. You can choose Auto, 4X4 High, and 4X4 Low in the Expy while the Mountaineer is stuck with just Auto.
The most concerning thing about the ratings is that the Mountaineer is rated higher by them in the "Powertrain quality-design" category. How can it be better if it is a stripped down version of the Explorer's system? :confuse: