Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
No problem, but the next time I won't suppress "assuming the brake pads were not prematurely worn out" when quoting the FS braking numbers ;-)
The hunting is definitely a transmission and a programming issue, but I am not sure GM has properly fixed it because I did notice it on our Outlook tester (inspection sticker said it was registered on March.)
I noticed gear hunting on the CX-9 we tested as well, but that depended a lot on my "determination" to press the gas pedal.
In the Outlook, if I pressed the gas gradually on a hill, the transmission was not smart enough to wait an extra moment to select the proper gear, instead it downshifted from 6th to 5th, tried to accelerate, and then noticed I was still pushing the pedal farther, and went to 4th. The tach needle went crazy.
Whether or not the transmission is tuned properly, that shouldn't take away from the *engine's* goodness. The car junkies in this thread should recognize a peak torque of 251 lb.ft. at 3200 rpm from a 3.6 engine on regular gas as a remarkable feat.
No argument on the CVT (my wife drives a Murano), although it tends to hesitate quite a bit under a heavy boot if I leave it on "D" instead of "S". There is a bit of dangerous "unloading" of the CVT after lifting on full-throttle, with the car still accelerating until the rpm's come down. Not sure the FS has the same problem.
First, *I* don't have a 37% advantage, the lambdas do. i may not buy one, but I'll miss all that cavernous space.
I did provide numbers showing the lambda's at at least 108 cu.ft based on interior dimensions. (5 ft x 7.25 ft x 3 ft.) I guess-timated the 3ft based on headroom numbers (3'2"), but the discrepancy is definitely not in weasel GM territory.
What is the ETA on those FS cargo hold numbers? Don't make me go to a Ford dealer
You have recently dismissed Consumer Reports (entirely) and both Ford and GM's own interior measurements. Always towards your favor:
I think ford underestimated and potentially GM overestimated their cargo numbers each contributing to the lack of clarity in this debate.
That's comical.
You also feel that curb weight is the most important issue in the world, and while that may be the case TO YOU, the fact it most american consumers simply don't give a hoot.
They go out and drive the Outlook or Acadia, they like it, they buy it. Pretty simple. It handles well, regardless of what the scales say.
Real world tests prove they're right. It handles as well or even better than lighter competitors. People on test drives are coming to the same conclusion, hence the strong sales.
as usual the only opinion you seem interested in is your own
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Your opinion is that the Lambdas are overweight, yet consumers are buying these up in high numbers because all of them test drove one and all of them disagree with your opinion that the Lambdas weigh too much!
"I did provide numbers showing the lambda's at at least 108 cu.ft based on interior dimensions. (5 ft x 7.25 ft x 3 ft.) I guess-timated the 3ft based on headroom numbers (3'2"), but discrepancy is definitely not in weasel GM territory."
you are talking about an almost 10% difference from the published number of 117. not huge but enough to have lead you to your initial quite large estimates of the advantage of the lambda over the FS.
saved you the traumatic experience of actually going to a ford dealer...lol... you owe me now...
These guys simply don't seem used to having a desirable product on the floor and are trying high-pressure practices that can upset savvy shoppers.
Last week, the nearby dealer agreed to call us whenever they had a model on display for a test drive. This morning I got call to "come by" and visit the dealer to define the details of our pre-order!
Sorry, no buying without a *loooong* test drive. Saturn allowed us a weekend an Outlook, Mazda allowed us a good 2 hours without the salesperson for the ride.
Buick dealers probably feel that a wait list means a vehicle is more desirable to consumers. I had this problem 5 years or so ago with the Honda Odyssey.
More data to chew on - largest cargo box, area in cubic feet, Outlook manages 48.5 cubes. Freestyle has 40.0.
An advantage slightly more than proportional to the extra mass.
I am not feeling like confirming the numbers until the idiotic nearby Buick dealer produces a CXL for a test-drive.
Can any lambda owner take those measurements from their cargo holds with all seats folded?
saved you the traumatic experience of actually going to a ford dealer...lol... you owe me now...
And a big *thank* you for that, lest I find you live in our area and were actually trying the braking stunt I suggested on an earlier post while I was walking on the lot.
Now I can save my visit to the check out the Flex, which is not looking hideous like in the C&D photo from the June (?) edition.
CR tries to evaluate too many things, they cannot be good at everthing they do hence I seek information from sources
that specifically evaluate what I am interested. I do not think that is an unreasonable reason to discount them or one that I only share(since you fully embrace decision making by concensus as opposed to you own critical thought). Jack of all trades and master of none seems to apply to CR quite aptly here.
"I think ford underestimated and potentially GM overestimated their cargo numbers each contributing to the lack of clarity in this debate."
What's lost on you is why I came to that conclusion I did after posting my thoughts on the matter. You would think I'm the first person to not believe everything they read at all times. Not once have you actually challenged my thinking and post other than to blather on about hypotheticals and suiting my own ideas conveniently. address the post directly as to why you don't agree in an intelligent debate as opposed to shooting off your own mouth with baseless opinion, i.e. tell me the fault in my logic(tried to make that easy for you to understand).
"Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Your opinion is that the Lambdas are overweight, yet consumers are buying these up in high numbers because all of them test drove one and all of them disagree with your opinion that the Lambdas weigh too much!'
You seem to place A LOT of faith in public opinion as an indicator of "good". why you just can't fathom the fact that they would be better with less weight because if they were more in line with their competitor's escapes me completely. I think you don't like the idea that we'd only have your ideas about style to debate as we long ago would have agreed that gm did ALL of their homework in the design of the lambda's if they had addressed that big issue they left on the table for me and my opinion of the lambda(BTW - read a few reviews and you'll see I'm not the only one that says that either, again, since you like public opinion so much).
BTW - just because people are lining up to buy them is not related to the fact that they weigh too much as one is not a objective rationalization for the other.
just you don't follow me anywhere if you ever get an enclave as those braking number you posted mean you'll shorten my beloved FS by 6ft if I have to stop suddenly. I'll save you the headache(and me) of a whiplash claim on being hit by a car that weighs 19% more than me...I know my brakes work because they were just replaced under warranty, I hope they get you one(finally) that has an airbag that goes off when you park your lambda in my 2nd row...lol
I'm really looking forward to the flex as well, I'm just hoping the mpg and curb weight are good for it(doubting, but hoping...) I think in real life it will be quite striking and have a 2nd row that will bury all comers if the press is close to accurrate, stay tuned...
Why is the Freestyle so much slower than the Explorer in this test? Noone has tried to answer that.
Attack their methodology if you wish, but it's still the same test, Ford vs. Ford.
If you want to read about my critical thought, read the reviews I linked to earlier, including both the Freestyle (hey, I liked it enough to consider it and take the time to drive it) and the Outlook. And yes, I'm critical.
I'm not shooting off my mouth with baseless opinion, I'm out there looking for more (perhaps better) sources of information.
You've been, honestly, lazy, and haven't listed any info or sources. Whatever people post here, you shoot down. Then you replace that with your own theories and speculation.
Meanwhile I'm out there looking for another point of data, cargo box volume, and posted it just before you posted. Ironic, isn't it? I'm out there, gathering useful data while you're insulting me about, what was it again, oh, "baseless opinion". You're so caught up in your argument that you missed another fact (not opinion) I just shared.
I test drove and ruled out the Outlook. No reason for bias here.
I simply do not agree that its mass was nearly as big a factor as you make it out to be, and the Consumer Reports maneuver, Motor Trend slaloms and skid pad results, and even our hosts right here on Edmunds.com (both slalom numbers are within 1mph of each other) all show that handling is comparable or in some cases better than the Freestyle.
Yes, less weight would be better, but at what cost? Again, the mere fact that you ask proves that your emphasis is on mass. Less mass would not be good if Saturn has to sacrifice the solid structure that I raved about in my review.
Sure, I'll take less mass all things being equal, but that would be quite a feat.
In fact you could do that with any criteria you want.
Would you want 50 more horsepower all other things being equal?
Would you want 10 more MPG all other things being equal?
Would you want $10,000 lower price all other things being equal?
Of course. Except all other things are not equal. You can't just single out one criteria like that.
that specifically evaluate what I am interested.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. CR is NO less credible than any other magazine that tests autos. I'm in no way a fan of the majestic non advertising CR, as I think they are a little biased toward American brands, but that's not the point.
You guys know what? I think Ford is messing with their numbers. How can the FS be so close in size to the lambdas,and accelerate so slow, yet only weigh 4000lbs? That's crazy! I will investigate further!
Our city dump has scales for before and after, for instance. You can weigh it empty as you leave, since they charge you for the difference in weight, entering and exiting.
what "sources" are there other than the manufacter's numbers i have cited to support my own critical thoughts that we all have access to were not adding up to the advantages that the lambda supporters were trying to come to the conclusion about. My source is myself and my thinking about what is being said about them and why I think otherwise about their accurracy which is what i was questioning. A 37% cargo advantage seemed far fetched in light of only a 5% interior volume advantage in vehicles dimensionally largely the same on the exterior short of width, think about it.
You have yet to debate that post and it's logic directly, you still dance around citing my laziness, who's lazy now? I offered an opinion of why I thought the numbers were inaccurrate to the extent they were being touted and you still WILL NOT address that specific intent of the posts I had going with nastacio. If you keep up he seems to even agree with me that there is something not quite right about there being a 37% advantage just looking at the manufacturer's provided numbers(say otherwise if that's not true nastacio please)
I have yet to see you "out there gathering usefull data" = blather, as you post your opinions as freely as I do, so like the performance test numbers you can call that argument a wash.
What I have continued to shoot down is the idea that excessive weight should be touted as "good design" in light of the negative effects on mpg. You argue you have in the market a cuv that matches/leads its class in mpg at 26mpg, I argue with the implementation of "good design" you engineer out 700lbs(so you can keep your 5% interior volume advantage, I know the numebrs aren't exactly 5%) and you will have a cuv that today, right now, would be getting maybe 28mpg or better without even taking into consideration anything else you could maximize because of that difference. maybe you would have then been swayed to buy that lambda as opposed to not buying the current one.
what is generation 2 lambda on this course of giving the consumer what they want. a 5200lb/6000lb tow/8 seat/400hp/22mpg vehicle that costs $40k base(because it can do all of those things), oh yeah we already have those they are called SUV's with the names, explorer,yukon,blah, blah, blah.
is it a good vehicle, yeah OK, whatever, they are going to sell a lot, to you that means it must be good and on that basis alone, sure it is. If you are going to try to tell me that it is a good piece of design, I'll argue ad infinitum(as I have already shown a propensity for) that while it's safe and moderately efficient, by no means is it "good design", it's competant design that has yet to challenge the CUV segment in a direction that would serve it well because the market will drive it to get bigger/more hp/less mpg from here and that's counter to the CUV brief as far as I'm concerned.
Come to think about it, all of this has maybe lead to a little epiphany, maybe the lambda's should be called unibody SUV's as opposed to CUV's... that might resolve a lot of the issues and classifications and labels floating around here.
Maybe it's in a class of it's own... that should make you happy ateixeira... but my assessment about it's design still stands...
sorry... nix the epiphany part, I don't have any "sources" to support my theory about calling it a unibody SUV, hence, all my thoughts in that last little bit are FUD.
sorry for wasting everyone's time, yours especially ateixeira...
In fact you could do that with any criteria you want.
Would you want 50 more horsepower all other things being equal?
Would you want 10 more MPG all other things being equal?
Would you want $10,000 lower price all other things being equal?
Of course. Except all other things are not equal. You can't just single out one criteria like that."
That's the closest thing to flat-out poetry I think I've ever seen on this board, dude. Pretty much sums it up. Cheers, Juice. :shades:
-c92
In fact, under such circumstances the presence of either flaw would avoid all hassles.
Now, would the situation be reversed, I would immediately change lanes, because I don't know what you look like and there would be a chance that the driver had not received his recall letter.
I think ateixeira kept up. Your FS numbers imploded my theory that Ford was selling short their numbers. A couple of postings ago I asked any resourceful lambda owner out there to produce better measurements for the cargo area than what I estimated.
108 cu.ft. is my current (low) ball park measurement.
Maybe it's in a class of it's own...
Are we coming full circle on my initial proposal for a CUV classification system? :shades:
As for the 37% cargo advantage you are challenging, the fact is the manufacturer's use advanced CAD systems to calculate the three dimensional volume that we can only guesstimate. Even tape measures can't be that accurate.
You want me to debate that point and its logic directly, fine, the manufacturers have access to advanced 3D computer models and know exactly what interior volumes are, no matter how it appears to you or me. I'll take a CAD model over your eyeballing it. Even if you do take a tape measure.
An example may be best. The Mazda Millenia had less interior volume than the Mazda Protoge of the same era. Break out your tape measure and it doesn't seem to make sense. Look a little closer and you'll see the door panels are scalloped out, the Millenia's moonroof ate up some room, and other hard-to-measure factors explain why the Protoge is roomier than its big brother.
Gathering useful data means finding a piece of info, such as the 48.5 (Outlook) vs. 40.0 (Freestyle) cubic feet for the largest cargo box that fits inside. That's what I've been doing.
You're mad at me and basically shooting the messenger. I'm sorry that I found a source and the information bothered you. That's not really my fault.
As for good design, I think the Lamdas are a good design despite their weight, not because of it. And less weight would not have swayed me to buy one, if you read my review you'd know I primarily ruled it out due to visibility, cost, and behind the 1st row seat comfort.
You say the Lambda is more of a unibody SUV due to its heavy duty mission, that's glass half empty thinking IMO.
I say a crossover is supposed to merge the best characteristics of SUVs (towing, payload), minivans (space), and cars (unibody, smooth ride). That's what the term Cross Over means, cross over into different segments.
Having those SUV characteristics makes it a better Crossover, not disqualified.
The Freestyle is car-like and has enough space, so it melds the car/minivan stuff fairly well, actually. It missed on the SUV points, though.
I'll recognize that 2 out of 3 ain't bad at all, but I think the Outlook nailed all 3.
...this comment is laughable, define "suv-like sheetmetal" for me...
I am all ears (or eyes).
You are right yet again, I've never posted my own figures I've gone out to find on the web to illustrate a point of my own. as for shooting them down, it was more like just not agreeing to the advantage that was being touted and why and the problem with that is what.
I use cad every day and understand what it does as a tool. What you fail to take into account is the variation of the gm team measuring interior space vs the ford team measuring interior space. yes while some process' try to get "standardized" there still can be deviation, intended or not, due to the fact that humans are still part of the process, the same applies to magazine testing.
As for your CUV thoughts, I don't agree it's a half full issue, I think it's just a difference in what I vs. you think a cuv should be. I don't agree that towing anything more than light duty needs to be part of the design brief. The SUV highlight of the trifecta should be SUV proportions and a higher seating position. It just seems to make more sense to buy a body on frame SUV for towing needs that are more than infrequent. The ongoing cost of having that capacity does not seem worth it. Your other 2 points we agree on.
As is typical for more, more, more in the market, my other point still stands, what is generation 2 lambda going to be and where does it all stop before you are right back where you started and the only real difference is one is unibody and the other is body on frame with all of the pertinent capacities and dimensions being largely the same. That exercise seems a dead end and the lambda's to me represent being well down the path to getting right back to that point.
BTW - thanks for actually addressing the points discussed this time.
the FS has suv proportions and similar dimensions to all its competitiors, yet it fails to get seen as having any suv characteristics at all despite this, I don't get it.
I'm not sure how you can "objectify" "suv-like sheetmetal" such a term since having sources and objective measurements are held in such esteem around here, give it a try though.
unibody suv solves a lot of the problems with the lambda's I have and what they are being measured against. take them out of the CUV fray and you have addressed the weight issue, tow capacity, and 8" of ground clearance that I don't think cuv's NEED to have as part of their design brief(IMHO). It improves the idiom of the SUV by engineering out weight and getting improved mpg relative to already bad numbers. But to compare it to the CUV crowd has maybe been unfair to all involved. You'd argue you tried to do that already but your argument was based solely on volume and a 5% advantage didn't seem enough of a reason to make that distinction. If you rethink what the lambda's are relative to the the majority of the cuv market and the suv market, I'd argue it sits better being measured in terms of the suv design brief where one could argue that it has improved that idiom. As I just stated in my other post, I just don't think it has taken the cuv in the direction if was intended.
Within a span of a few hours you can't write:
The SUV highlight of the trifecta should be SUV proportions and a higher seating position.
and then write
the FS has suv proportions and similar dimensions to all its competitiors, yet it fails to get seen as having any suv characteristics at all despite this, I don't get it.
and then propose that the lambdas be deemed unibody SUVs on a class of their own, and in the end claim you cannot define "SUV-like sheetmetal" (a clear reference to their shape) :
you threw "SUV-like sheetmetal" into the mix, you define it as I wouldn't begin to know where to start with that.
So, in your opinion the FS has clear "SUV proportions" and similar dimensions to its competitors (which includes the lambdas), but then propose that the lambdas are unibody SUVs that should not be unfairly compared to CUV's (of which you consider an FS a good example.
I am still all ears (and eyes).
I'd argue that any variations in how a CAD program is used to measure volume it still far more accurate than the human eyeball.
Plus, the data point I offered up (48.5 vs. 40.0 cubic feet for a largest cargo box) was obtained using an actual physical device, a 3D cube with sides that telescope to expand and contract.
You think a CUV is just about proportions and seat height? Sounds like a large and tall station wagon to me.
The Ford Five Hundred has an elevated seating position, they even marketed it with tag line "elevating the sedan".
Plus, my minivan has a higher seating position (seat base is 26" off the pavement). And an AWD option. So again, the Freestyle does manage to mimick a station wagon and a minivan, but not an SUV.
An AWD Sienna has more ground clearance, and the seat height even taller than mine.
This is not what I think or what you think, Crossovers are by definition aimed at people that want attributes from several different classes of vehicle.
The Freestyle is a large station wagon (nothing wrong with that, again we own a Legacy wagon) that's just a bit taller than normal, like its brother the Five Hundred. They toss in AWD and some plastic cladding on the fenders. That doesn't give it the SUV characteristics that the Outlook has.
You rant about a gen 2 Lambda but really we have no idea where GM is going to go with that, and I'd rather not speculate. I'm sure they'll listen to their customers, certainly not some rant on the internet. :P
Some of the posts do get a bit too wordy. Then it's like Jimmy crack corn and I don't care.
my point;
if you are going to pick suv characteristics to bring to the cuv party I offer that proportions and raised seating position are the ones to throw into the cross part of cross-over. I think weight, ride height and tow capacity are considerations of the suv world and should be used in that segment to shop and compare capabilities.
"the FS has suv proportions and similar dimensions to all its competitiors, yet it fails to get seen as having any suv characteristics at all despite this, I don't get it."
my only point there was to address the fact that a lot of opinions around here state the FS reads more as a wagon as opposed to a suv, I don't get it as it's visual proportions and seating height are suv like.
"and then propose that the lambdas be deemed unibody SUVs on a class of their own, and in the end claim you cannot define "SUV-like sheetmetal" (a clear reference to their shape) :
you threw "SUV-like sheetmetal" into the mix, you define it as I wouldn't begin to know where to start with that.
So, in your opinion the FS has clear "SUV proportions" and similar dimensions to its competitors (which includes the lambdas), but then propose that the lambdas are unibody SUVs that should not be unfairly compared to CUV's (of which you consider an FS a good example."
you tried to get me to define your term "suv-like sheetmetal" you used when we were talking about weight(big suprise)as being a portion of the cause for it being heavier than the FS.
I said I won't as I don't know how you can quantify the "suv-like sheetmetal" in the context you used it comparing one to the other and challenged you to support your claim.
yes the fs/lambda are suv like in terms of proportion and seat height(what I think should be the suv characteristics brought to the cross-over table in terms of ateixeira's points)and dimensionally similar. If you want to evaluate on weight, tow rating, and clearance, I think that keeps you in terms of the strengths of the suv world where one could argue the lambda's improved the suv segment with less weight, better mileage, decent towing.
If you measure the lambda's in terms of my idea of the cuv market those capacities I think are detrimental as they are beyond the cuv design brief(IMHO) because what are strengths to the suv world I see them detrimental to the cuv world. they are a better solution to the suv idiom than the cuv idiom, as the FS is a better solution to the cuv idiom than the suv idiom.
I think the unibody suv term might explain and be a better measure of what the lambda's are instead of throwing them in the cuv mix for the reasons I already went into.
cuv to me = car like ride, large portion of minivan space, suv seating position, general economy(match mini at least, car numbers would be better), suv proportions(i.e. not minivan because that still is a reason people are looking at these as opposed to mini's, vanity applies) moderate curb weight(you don't get the same room as a mini, why should it weigh any more than one if you are going to sacrifice the space for vanities sake)
tow rating & ground clearance to me are not part of the design brief of the cuv, any capacity is a bonus but not what I'd make design decisions about if designing/considering one.
call the fs and its competitor's cuv's and the lambda's 7/8 scale full size suv's that just happen to be unibody construction to get there.
Woah, woah, not "some" plastic cladding, at least not on the TX Eddie Bauer model. You are talking "Pueblo Gold-painted bodyside" cladding that would send shivers down the frame of a Pontiac GrandAm. A few more inches and you would kiss bye-bye front fenders.
Will someone please tell me that those are part of the sheet-metal stamping and not tacked on to appeal those mindless members of the more-is-better mob? :shades:
Gen 2 lambda: same size with a DSI engine making 1-2 extra mpg, or a V6 diesel. Ah, an LS3 with 4 cylinder shut-off for the upcoming Chevy Traverse SS version to blow the doors out of a Flex twin-charged V6. Better plastics in the interior and...not much else.
They could stand to lose 100-200 lbs in the process, but who's counting?
They should borrow the Five Hundred's tag line:
Elevating the Station Wagon
Tossing in plastic cladding, Outback style, doesn't give it SUV proportions. If it did the Outback would be an SUV. And Outbacks have up to 8" of clearance, substantially more than the Freestyle. Still, that's not enough.
The seat is higher than most wagons, but again, not as high up as SUVs.
It worked and so Ford must have been inspired by them.
Oh, and by the way, I've actually measured seat height on some models.
Copied from another thread:
I took a tape measure to record what I will call the "hip point", i.e. height of the seat base at the back of the seat.
For reference, I measured each car I saw:
Miata: 13" (talk about low)
Legacy 2.5i sedan: 17.5"
Outback XT: 22"
Tribeca: 26"
Add to that my Sienna, 26". AWD Sienna are a bit more than an inch higher (over 27") due to extra clearance, so that seat is actually higher up than the Subaru Tribeca's.
Can someone take a tape measure to the Freestyle's seat, please? Measure from the ground to the base of the seat at the back, where your bottom would go.
I bet it's lower than my van.
If you think about it, that might get some full-sive SUV owners to actually downsize.
Short enough post for ya?
The Sienna is not a minivan, it is an SUV with sliding doors and a short hood.
With AWD and 7.9" of ground clearance and 3500 lbs towing capacity, it falls squarely in SUV territory and unfairly competes with less adequate CUV's.
And don't get me started on that weight, let me look it up...dang...4300lbs (FWD), anyway, you are wrong, idiom, discourse, dialog, and all that.
I do think that GM was considering these taking the place of some full size SUVs, so they designed them big, and they do a great job. The Acadia and the Yukon shouldn't even be in the same room together (no offense to all you Yukon owners). Give it a V8 with 350 plus hp (though it should be fuel efficient) and make it tow 5500lbs. The Yukon will be discontinued, though the XL can stick around.
I think that's the definition of a minivan- or at least the sliding doors part. But i thought ground clear was 6.9 in.
195+ inch length= large
185-195in length= midsize
less than 185in =compact
3500# towing seems about par in the crossover class, GM just offers a little extra beef.
I look at vehicles in terms of their use. How many people can it hold, how much cargo space, what can it tow, price, MPG, is it AWD, etc. If you look at function over category, then you find a group of vehicles that perform the functions you want, and compare them. Call them wagons, SUVs, minvans or whatever.
That's why people are cross-shopping minivans, wagons, CUVs, SUVs etc... Before indicating that one is "better" over another, it's better to qualify it based on your needs, especially in this forum.
All this discussion about ground clearance...like a couple of extra inches either way is going to mean much to most folks. And with CuFt of cargo space...how often are you carrying 4x8 sheets of plywood, which by-the-way I can't do in my FS...I just rent the Lowes's truck for $20
I read humors of a V8 for the Enclave, but I would settle for a DSI V6. Eye-rolling withstanding, a Corvette-sourced LS3 for the SS version of the upcoming GM version would not be too much to ask.
How many people can it hold? Lambda wins
How much cargo space? Lambda wins
What can it tow? Lambda wins
Price? Lambda wins (it costs more, more is better in this thread)
mpg? Lambda ties
AWD? No data, but the lambdas have better ground clearance.
In short, buy a minivan.
If you think about it, that might get some full-sive SUV owners to actually downsize.
Short enough post for ya? "
I think I'll be there in a few years. Bought a 2004 Nav earlier this year (gotta love that American depreciation when buying a few years later
The bottom line for me was this:
If you're going to be rational, a Minivan always wins. Forget bickering about 5% or 20% more space, try 100% more space. Decent towing, 4'x8' plywood fits inside and stays dry, seat 8 comfortably and some luggage. The better vans have plenty of HP and still get good mileage. No crossover can do all that, it's just not even close.
If you make an emotional purchase, you want something that makes your pulse race. SUVs and some crossovers have that go-anywhere stance, they look rugged and cool. You look forward to driving them. They have character. They put a grin on your face. Sitting inside you feel like you're on top of the world.
So it's hard to sell a crossover on purely practical terms, because it loses to a van. If it doesn't evoke emotion, then it won't do well in the market, and is forced to compete primarily on price.
IMHO that's why the Freestyle failed in the market. Not as practical as a van, not as cool as newer crossovers.
I don't think an engine alone will spark Taurus X sales.
The Flex, on the other hand, has bold styling and a cool looking interior. I think it has a better chance to succeed, despite a higher price than the Taurus X.
Shifting gears here a little, I think if the Freestyle drove like a Cadillac SRX, it would have been a hit with enthusiasts.
PS Since May I've hauled home 4'x8's on two occasions. Some drywall for my home theatre (*) and some lattice trim for my deck.
PPS (*) 116" home theatre projection is SCHWEEEET!
PPPS Size does matter.
I am not going to post it here for them either (at least not right away,) leaving it as an exercise for the students.
If memory serves me right, this is a GMC van.
I think the the Sienna and the Odyssey look pretty good, specially the Odyssey Touring model and its impractical, albeit gorgeous, 17.5" inch wheels.
As my brother uses to joke; anything with 20" wheels, flared fenders, and wings will look cool. The corollary for his infinite wisdom is that the A-Team van could look even cooler with dubs.
Any how, I always thought SUVs were cool because they could go places vans could not. The whole off road thing. I guess the new trend is to look like you can go off road even though you can't.
Oh, and for the record the difference between a unibody SUV and a unibody Crossover is that the SUV is based on a RWD drivetrain, and the crossover, FWD.
Not that the biggest in each category is the best, but I go though the categories...how many people do I need to carry, what sort of MPG am I after, how much can I spend, will I ever tow anything, do I need AWD, what about the reputation of reliability of the manufacturer, dealership experiences, etc...
Based on the answers to these a more questions, there could be different "winners."
Okay, distance from road to base of seat is about 25.5" to 26" - too close to call. Front of the seat is 28" or so. if its really important I can remeasure and take a picture.
BTW, the weight of my 06 FS LTD AWD with all options is 4332 lbs with 1/4 tank of gas and about 20 lbs of books in the back. If we subtract the 15 or so Litres we get under 4300 lbs empty. I weighed it today at a roadside scale.