Crossover SUV Comparison

barnstormer64

but calling something that is not a sedan a "Taurus X" is pretty stupid IMHO.

I guess they could've called it the Taurus WAGON. But it's really a bit more than a wagon (a lot taller, for one thing).

And since it's a cross-over, than can be abbreviated X-over . . . so, Taurus X actually fits.

carlitos92

Well, again... to each his own. If we really wanted to start a riot, we could talk about the dumb trend of bringing back car names from the 60's-70's for new cars... But, off-topic, to say the least.

I'm just glad they didn't call my CX-7 a "Mazdaspeed 6X" or my Jetta a "Passat Jr." :P

ssangyong_cars

i like the Hyundai Veracruz the best
i hate the Saturn Outlook its retarded

fromsf

Based on the reviews so far, winners will be in this order
1. Veracruz
2. Outlook/Acadia
3. CX-9
4. MDX/Pilot
5. Highlander

Highlander looks like a Santa Fe and its going to loose lot of customers. Also itsn't big enough to compare well against the competitors and the price advantage is also negligble.

2008 Highlander is going to be first failure that Toyota is going to taste in their recent memories.

perna

There is no way you could look at what Ford is doing with the Taurus X and come not come to one conclusion.

They have listened to the customer - All I have heard since they came out from haters on this board was that they were underpowered and bland looking (subjective to be sure).

Well both of those are now a mute point. This thing is spectacular looking and now has power to burn. It will be roomy, refined, powerful, functional, reliable, SAFE and sporty looking. There will be little to complain about except by those that hate American car manufacturers. What will the haters complain about now........

I despise the Freestyle/"Taurus X"'s cockpit. It's somewhat claustraphobic, but my main problem is the center stack. I'm somewhat long-legged, and the center stack literally cuts right below my right leg's kneecap. We test drove one last year, and it was very uncomfortable.

What's weird about the design is that the passenger has tons of room, but the driver's legs are like they're in a vise.

We're going to buy either an Outlook or Enclave by May (the Acadia's packages don't work well for our wants/needs). I wanted to check out the Hyundai at the local auto show, but they didn't have them there. Service is a HUGE concern on buying a Korean make so we probably wouldn't have gone that route anyway, but it would have been nice to compare. I'll certainly at least stop by the Hyundai dealership in April to check it out.

readerreader

What reviews?

The Highlander will do just fine. Obviously you don't know Toyota buyers!

readerreader

albook

Taurus X should be called Taurus wagon It's nothing more than a Wagon! Looks like one and acts like one! All there is to it!

sranger

Well,

The Edge would be my top pick, but I won't buy a $3x,000 vehicle with known braking problems. There are simply too many good alternatives. I like the Santa Fe interior and ride, but just don't like the exterior looks. The wife, who is a hugh Toyota Fan hates the new Hylander's looks. I have to agree with her. The Rav4 is out on Looks and a wrong hinged rear door. GM lost my busines years ago and I WILL NEVER give GM any of my money. I had to sue them and I did win the suit, but it was a horrable experiance. I like the Mitsubishi Outlander, but I felt a little cramped in it.

Now that I have seen all models and driven many. It looks like the CX-9, BWM X3, or Taurus X. The X3 is fun, but a little small and way too expensive.

Front Runner = CX-9...

P.S. None of these are SUV's or CUV's. That are "SUV Styled" mini vans that men will drive( or you can call them tall wagons )

fromsf

I am a Toyota owner and I love my car.

Currently, Toyota is expensive than the competitors and also competitors have improved lot on their reliablity. Many Toyota loyalists like me started feeling strongly that there is no need to pay the premium for reliablity and shed all the hard earned dollars to Toyota.

readerreader

I am a Toyota owner and I love my car.

Currently, Toyota is expensive than the competitors and also competitors have improved lot on their reliablity. Many Toyota loyalists like me started feeling strongly that there is no need to pay the premium for reliablity and shed all the hard earned dollars to Toyota.
==============================================

I wouldn't say that there were "many" of you yet.

joe97

The Highlander will sell because it is a Toyota, or should I word it as a question, and with a question mark?

When the RAV4 came out, the Highlander still sold in large quantities, despite the RAV4 being the better of the two. I am not saying I like the RAV4 better than the Highlander, but even with the new version of the Highlander due out later this year, I found little or no incentives to buy the Highlander over the RAV4, if I were in the market for one of these two.

Personally, I prefer the looks of the current Highlander than the new one.

albook

Well ofcourse thosewho have highlanders won't go elsewhere (unless there kids grow legs and have to go tho the way back) but still-THOse looking at new CUV's who want good capability will look at that a little. But if sales drop, this won't be the reason. I do think other companiess may snatch a few Toyota sales-as all quality reps are about the same now. GM and FOrd have some of the best quality builds in certain areas. ANd TOyota's-overstretched. Plus- look at all the peple posting that they are trading in MDX's, the CUV queen, for Acadias.

ABout HIghlander size- let's look at it this way. THe original third row (though uncomfrtable) was 30 inches legroom. stretch it 4 inches and see how much more cargo and row 3 space there is. I think it looks a little better compared to the old one and will be a huge improvement. NOt the same for the "taurus X". WHat did they do? SLap 3 bars on the grille and give it more power? big improvement! FOrd's problem is that it doesn't relize stupid mistakes until 3 years later. THe 500 name. THE 500/ freestyle power. THe 500 all together. FOrd needs to give us something we really want. SOmeone cross shopping VEraCRuz and X will probably go for Vera cruz because it has style. Same person might reconsider over an extended (CX-9)edge.

tom_holsinger

"... It's main drawback has been dismal Ford advertising (and lack thereof).."

Which is why I suggested, on the "What Would Change About the Freestyle" topic, that the best way to improve the Freestyle would be to change its manufacturer.

tom_holsinger

Low-end Freestyles are very competitive due to its low price - I paid $24,000 for mine a year ago. Higher-end Freestyles are not competitive enough in price relative to comparable models, and at that point issues about interior quality, durability (the brake issue) and, to a lesser extent, noise, hurt it still more.

The face-lift is badly needed to make it more competitive throughout the price range.

tom_holsinger

This is a car forum - acceleration and handling are more important than for most buyers.

We are Americans:

A lot of hp is good...

More hp is better...

Too Much is just right....

Thank God not all Americans think like that!

A lot of hp is a waste...

More hp is even more of a waste...

Too much hp is just plain stupid...

Give me better mpg over more hp anytime

It depends on circumstances. I love my 4-cylinder 2002 Camry XLE as a commuter car with its 30.8 average mpg over 88,000 miles, and certainly the better mpg the Freestyle offers over its competitors (most of the comparisons posted are of its competitors' nominal mpg as opposed to Freestyle real mpg) was a significant factor in my decision to buy it, but its cargo capacity and very low price were more important for me, especially as I don't plan to keep it more than 5-6 years. The Camry I'll keep until I can't stand it anymore.

If my children were younger and still at home, I'd want more hp to tow trailers for vacations. But they're all in college so interior cargo volume is critical.

Expect mpg to become a much more important issue later this year when we finally start fighting back against Iran, and still more important 3-5 years after that when the Saud regime collapses.

But, absent such magnitudes of gasoline price shocks ($7-8 a gallon, maybe $10 a gallon, for six months at a time), horsepower will generally be more important on these forums than mpg.

readerreader

That is what they say:

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/video/roadtests.shtml

"Expect 22 miles per gallon in everyday use on Regular gas."

Click on "Flash Video" for a video, or click here:

http://mpt.org/motorweek/video/roadtests/rt2622b_flash.shtml

lakerunner4h

That is what they say:

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/video/roadtests.shtml

"Expect 22 miles per gallon in everyday use on Regular gas."

I would be pleased with 22 mpg average. My '06 Ford Five Hundred FWD averages about 20 overall, so stepping up to 22 would be an improvement, especially considering AWD would come with it.

arumage

With AWD, you can cut a couple mpg off of that 22. I always find it nice that Motorweek drives their vehicles as they were intended. Alot of the other magazines and shows drive every vehicle as if it were a sports car. Motorweek seems to give a more accurate view of everyday driving.

aviboy97

I just came back from a ride and drive, comparing the Pilot, CX-9 and Highlander. Here are my thoughts.

When driving all three on a road course, each of the three responded completely different. To start, the Pilot's steering was no where near the responsiveness of the CX-9, and even fell short of the Highlander. It was very tough to control when cornering, or a sudden lane change. Lots of human energy was expended trying to aviod the cones. It felt very loose. This can be attributed to the lack of a speed sensing steering system. When braking, the Pilot did a tremendous nose dive. On a positive note, the power was decent, and excelleration was adequate. The interior looked very dated, non exciting, very generic. 3rd row seating was not adequate, yet, more room then the Highlander.

The Highlander V6 felt underpowered ( I'm assuming the 2008 will have the 269hp engine). I happened to lock up the brakes when stopping. The Highlander also had tremendous nose dive when braking. In cornering, there was sufficient body roll, and the steering felt loose, just like the Pilot, however, I felt more in control in the Highlander. As for the interior, it was very dated, loads of cheap plastic(yet again, to be updated in 2008, but the gauge pod in the dash looks like a giant bug, yuck!). The radio was practically identical to the one I had in my 1991 Toyota Celica. Third row was very cramped. I was not impressed what so ever.

The CX-9 was the hands down winner in driving dynamics. Responsive V6. When going through the slolum, the vehicle felt planted, less body roll then both Highlander and Pilot. Tires had tremendous grip. When going through the sudden lane change, or accident avoidance, the speed sensing steering made it an ease to move. No real human power was needed. The CX-9 stayed planted. When braking, the ABS w/ electronic brake force distribution minimized the nose dive, and all the whole vehicle actually dropped, not just the nose. Mazda's break assist made it effortless to stop, no real pressure was needed in a sudden stop. The interior of the GT was top notch. It's leaps and bounds over the CX-7. Was very impressed with the indirect lighting. All three rows had excellent leg room. Road and wind noise are completely silenced due to foam insulated A pillars, sound deadening materials in engine compartment and flooring.

Overall, I was very impressed with the CX-9. Seems to be a class leader. I want to drive the Acadia or Outlook to see how they stack up. So far, I can see why the CX-9 in Edmunds "Most Wanted under $35,000". Kudos Mazda for a great vehicle.

bobw3

horsepower will generally be more important on these forums than mpg

maybe, but not to me...I never tow, and I hardly see anyone driving and towing with CUVs or minivans, even if they can. So why waste the hp on the 2% who will ever tow??? Save that for the Explorer and other similar vehicles.

albook

maybe, but not to me...I never tow, and I hardly see anyone driving and towing with CUVs or minivans, even if they can. So why waste the hp on the 2% who will ever tow??? Save that for the Explorer and other similar vehicles.
People who want it are those who wanyt a responsive peppy ride. These are heavy vehichles. WHy should they have to drag? As for the huge amount of HP- It's frill-if you want it, nothing wrong with having some. YOu obviously don't want an X5. Some do. Now since we're only really talking about family SUVs, HP and MPG should be of equall importance.

explorerx4

that looks good from the front. really like the wheels.
interior is good. i don't like it too fancy, kids trash it up. the back is a problem for me. a hit in the back looks like a 4-5k repair job.

dbt

Aviboy97,
You make the following statement, without disclosing that you seem to be a Mazda dealer:

... The CX-9 was the hands down winner in driving dynamics. ...
Overall, I was very impressed with the CX-9. Seems to be a class leader. ... So far, I can see why the CX-9 in Edmunds "Most Wanted under $35,000". Kudos Mazda for a great vehicle.

I take that you are a Mazda dealer from this post here on the CX9 board:
CX9 Discussion

In this comparative discussion (where people may not be as familiar with you) and in particular a post where you conclude that the CX-9 is the "winner," I would recommend identifying yourself as a Mazda dealer, if that is what you are.

Your participation is welcome, and I appreciate your specific comments. However, it also seems appropriate to identify possible sources of bias in any post where you are stating your personal opinion for a Mazda as a "winner" over its competitors.

aviboy97

Aviboy97,
You make the following statement, without disclosing that you seem to be a Mazda dealer:

If you had read my profile, you would have noticed that I disclosed there that I am a Mazda dealer. That is what profiles are for. I have stated in this thread before that I am a dealer. I have made no attempt to hide it. I will not disclose that I am a Mazda dealer in every post I make.

Where I made the statement about the CX-9 being the "hands down winner" in driving dynamics, it was. There is no bias there. When it comes to facts, it's impossible to be bias. You will also notice that I only commented on three of the many vehicles in this thread. Not all. Once again, I am only posting what I have experienced

However, it also seems appropriate to identify possible sources of bias in any post where you are stating your personal opinion for a Mazda as a "winner" over its competitors.

I would assume that my statement of a "ride and drive" course would have given it away that I am a dealer. Facts are facts. In the tests that were done on all three vehicles, the CX-9 excelled, whereas the other two did not. It is only a matter of time before we see an article comparing all three, and maybe more. If what I posted offended you, like I think it has, then do not read what I have to say.

If you are going to accuse me of being bias, you should look at my posts in every thread that I have posted on, and see that I have praised many other vehicles, besides Mazda's.

I have noticed that many owners seem to be bias, or sensitive when the vehicle they own gets degraded, just as much as dealers. So, really, me being a dealer has nothing to do with anything. I post my experience and any knowledge that can help people make an informed decision, which is what I have done. Thank you.

p.s. I guess Edmunds must be bias as well, since they have given it the "Most Wanted SUV Under $35,000" ....

arumage

I personally have to agree with aviboy97 on the driving dynamics. It was a sweet vehicle to drive. It felt like a much smaller vehicle. I didn't feel any harshness, but the model I tested had the 18" wheels instead of 20". Based on other Hyundai vehicles, the Veracruz will probably have a softer, more compliant ride. The GMC CUV's have a higher center of gravity and weigh about 400 lbs more so I'm sure they're not near the performer the CX-9 is. It makes a pretty good compromise between ride and room. For me, I think it's currently between the CX-9 and the Veracruz. I'm really looking forward to driving the Veracruz.

aviboy97

At the ride and drive I was able to drive the GT (which I do not have at my lot yet) and there is a little bit of difference between the 20's and the 18's. It looks much nicer with the 20's, and handles a bit better. However, the ride it a bit stiffer.

I have yet to drive the GMC, and I'm still waiting for the Hyundai dealer next to me to get them in. I hate waiting.

arumage

My wife doesn't like the GMC. Despite only a 2" difference in length, the GMC feels and looks much more massive. She doesn't really like that feeling. She said if she wanted to feel that way she would start looking at Tahoe's and Expeditions's.

dbt

Aviboy97,
I am going to put my reply to your reply in CAPS for clarity [I'm not trying to shout, just trying to be clear because it seems from your post that you misinterpreted what I was saying, and I'm trying to point out specifically where I think you misunderstood me. For reference, your comment in italics, my earlier comment in italics plus underline, your earlier comment I edited out in bold]:

Aviboy97,
You make the following statement, without disclosing that you seem to be a Mazda dealer:

If you had read my profile, you would have noticed that I disclosed there that I am a Mazda dealer. That is what profiles are for. I have stated in this thread before that I am a dealer. I have made no attempt to hide it. I will not disclose that I am a Mazda dealer in every post I make.
MY RECOMMENDATION WAS SIMPLE: DISCLOSE THAT YOU WORK FOR A DEALER IN A POST WHERE YOU DECLARE A COMPARATIVE "WINNER", NOT IN EVERY POST YOU MAKE. IT IS THESE TYPE OF POSTS THAT YOU SHOULD BE MORE CAREFUL IN REMINDING OTHERS OF YOUR BACKGROUND.

Where I made the statement about the CX-9 being the "hands down winner" in driving dynamics, it was. There is no bias there. When it comes to facts, it's impossible to be bias.
SORRY, BUT ASSESSMENT OF "DRIVING DYNAMICS" IS SUBJECTIVE, AND HENCE SUBJECT TO BIAS. I PERSONALLY AGREE WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT HERE, BUT I AM JUST SAYING THAT IN STATING YOUR OPINION OF D.D., THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF BIAS.

You will also notice that I only commented on three of the many vehicles in this thread. Not all. Once again, I am only posting what I have experienced.
THIS WAS HELPFUL, AND I DID SAY I APPRECIATED YOUR SPECIFIC COMMENTS.

However, it also seems appropriate to identify possible sources of bias in any post where you are stating your personal opinion for a Mazda as a "winner" over its competitors.

I would assume that my statement of a "ride and drive" course would have given it away that I am a dealer.
THIS WAS NOT COMPLETELY CLEAR. I HAVE DONE MARKETING EVENTS THAT I WOULD DESCRIBE AS RIDE AND DRIVES, AND I HAVE NEVER WORKED FOR ANY DEALER / MANUFACTURER.

Facts are facts. In the tests that were done on all three vehicles, the CX-9 excelled, whereas the other two did not.
HERE WAS YOUR EARLIER COMMENT (I HAD EDITED IT OUT):
When going through the slolum, the vehicle felt planted, less body roll then both Highlander and Pilot. Tires had tremendous grip. When going through the sudden lane change, or accident avoidance, the speed sensing steering made it an ease to move. No real human power was needed. The CX-9 stayed planted.
AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND, EACH OF YOUR ASSESSMENTS HERE WERE SUBJECTIVE, NOT FACTS: "felt planted", "less body roll", "tremendous grip," "ease to move"
AS SUBJECTIVE EVALUATIONS, THEY ARE SUBJECT TO POSSIBLE BIAS.

It is only a matter of time before we see an article comparing all three, and maybe more. If what I posted offended you, like I think it has, then do not read what I have to say.
I SAID I APPRECIATED YOUR SPECIFIC COMMENTS. I FIND A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION IN YOUR OTHER POSTS. AS I SAID BEFORE, I PERSONALLY AGREE WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS OK TO FAIL TO NOTE POSSIBLE SOURCES OF BIAS WHEN MAKING FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL, SUBJECTIVE COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS. MY POINT IS THAT YOU ARE DOING READERS OF THIS FORUM A DISSERVICE WHEN YOU MAKE THESE EVALUATIONS WITHOUT NOTING THAT YOU ARE A DEALER, SO THAT LESS INFORMED READERS (I.E. READERS WHO ARE PICKING UP THE THREAD NOW) MIGHT NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR BACKGROUND.

If you are going to accuse me of being bias,
HERE IS WHERE IT SEEMS YOU HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD ME. IF YOU GO BACK AND READ MY COMMENT, I "RECOMMENDED" THAT YOU NOTE YOUR BACKGROUND AS WORKING FOR A MAZDA DEALER BECAUSE THAT IS A POSSIBLE-repeat-POSSIBLE "SOURCE OF BIAS." THERE IS A DIFFERENCE THERE. BY THE WAY, I AM A CONSUMER, SO THAT IS A POSSIBLE SOURCE OF BIAS FOR ME TOO.

you should look at my posts in every thread that I have posted on, and see that I have praised many other vehicles, besides Mazda's.
I HAVE READ MANY OF YOUR OTHER POSTS, AND FOUND THEM VERY INFORMATIVE. I WAS SIMPLY POINTING OUT THAT YOUR LANGUAGE IN THIS PARTICULAR POST WAS SUBJECTIVE ENOUGH THAT IT WOULD BE PREFERABLE (IMHO) FOR YOU TO NOTE YOUR CONNECTION TO MAZDA.

I have noticed that many owners seem to be bias, or sensitive when the vehicle they own gets degraded, just as much as dealers.
I AGREE. WE ARE ALL BIASED. FOR SAKE OF DISCLOSURE, MY HOUSEHOLD'S VEHICLE OWNERSHIP HISTORY: 3 HONDAS, 1 SUBARU, 1 CHRYSLER, 1 FORD, 1 VOLKSWAGEN, AND 3 MAZDAS.

So, really, me being a dealer has nothing to do with anything.
HERE IS WHERE I RESPECTFULLY AND SIGNIFICANTLY DISAGREE WITH YOU. I CONSIDER THIS A POSSIBLE-again-repeat-POSSIBLE SOURCE OF BIAS.

I post my experience and any knowledge that can help people make an informed decision, which is what I have done. Thank you.
AGAIN, I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS, AND FIND THEM USEFUL.

I DO LOOK FORWARD TO READING MORE OF YOUR POSTS.
...

sssfegy

How is that subjective? Sorry he was referring to the dynamics in accident avoidence! With different drivers getting the same result? Would you make the same conclusion if you were there? I don't want this to stretch, but everyone can say what there opinion is, and what the winner is in their mind, that's what everybody does before they buy their winner!BTW, I am a car dealer also!

aviboy97

I can see where one could possibly construe my findings to be subjective because I do work for a Mazda dealer, however, I try not to post that way.

I cannot help if someone finds me bias because of how I make money, just as I have to remember many owners in here come across as bias, even though they may not intend to be.

Just for future reference, I do not see how statistics constitute bias, nor do I praise a vehicle just because I "like it". The road course results were crystal clear. I am sure there are many other tests that could have been done for a more accurate comparison (such as ride comfort over bumpy roads), however, I cannot possibly assume what that outcome may be, so, I just posted the results of what I tested.

I will have you know, I tried to make my statements based the results of the tested vehicles on how they performed. However, my opinion of interior/exterior style are subjective, so take that as you may. It is impossible for it not to be.

I currently own a 2005 Mazda6, 2002 Subaru Impreza, 1992 Ford Mustang (in pieces). Past vehicles: Honda Accord, Toyota Celica and Mitsubishi Eclipse.

dmarschall

Have you test driven that vehicle? If so, how did it compare to the Mazda CX-9?

aviboy97

I have never driven the RAV4 with the 3rd row. I have heard that it is quite cramped.

arumage

The Rav4 is smaller than the Hyundai Santa Fe. The Santa Fe's 3rd row is almost uncomfortable for adults so I'd say that the Rav4's has to be pretty uncomfortable and very close to the rear door, although I haven't been in one yet.

nxs138

BTW, you should take this offline, doesn't add anything to the forum.

sssfegy

No comparison, the Cx9's is usuable.

arumage

No comparison, the Cx9's is usuable for those under 6'

I had to ammend that because I don't fit in the headroom department.

nxs138

No comparison, the Cx9's is usuable for those under 6'

Perfect! I'm 5'11" ! I'm fitting all the way!

Actually, I'll have to see how the Veracruz has in terms of seating room. My wife likes the looks of it, too.

husky92

Ok, I'm looking at the CX-9 and the Acadia/Enclave/Outlook. I have a few questions:

6 speed automatic: I think I read that the 6-speed automatic in the Acadia/Enclave is a joint Ford/GM effort. Is that right? Ironically, I heard that the Mazda doesn't use it. Is that right?

CX-9 motor: It's the Ford 3.5 V6 right? What's the deal with the assembly? I read that it is the Ford block but built and assembled in Japan by Mazda so it's more Mazda than Ford. Is that right?

The final thing is something I already know the answer to but hopefully somebody can tell me I'm smoking crack. You CAN'T get a sunroof AND the DVD entertainment package together on the CX-9. If so, that really sucks.

aviboy97

6 speed automatic: I think I read that the 6-speed automatic in the Acadia/Enclave is a joint Ford/GM effort. Is that right? Ironically, I heard that the Mazda doesn't use it. Is that right?


I believe that to be true about the Ford/GM tranny. The Mazda CX-9 uses the Aisin transmission (Aisin built trannys for Honda and Toyota in the past.)

CX-9 motor: It's the Ford 3.5 V6 right? What's the deal with the assembly? I read that it is the Ford block but built and assembled in Japan by Mazda so it's more Mazda than Ford. Is that right?

I think the 3.5L Ford engine is already assembled before being shipped to Japan. I could be wrong. I will see if I can find otherwise.

You CAN'T get a sunroof AND the DVD entertainment package together on the CX-9.

Yes. Correct.

husky92

Thank you for the quick reply. So, given that the CX-9 is made in Japan and outside of the Ford motor is mostly Japanese it sounds like it would have a significant quality advantage over the Acadia etc. I'm very leary of GM vehicles.

nxs138

I think Mazda trails Toyota and Honda in terms of quality/reliability; not sure how it compares with GM, but I do know initial quality with GM vehicles is improving, although that doesn't speak of their reliability.

From what I've read so far, the CX-9 has a nice quality interior, better than the CX-7, so that's a good thing!

aviboy97

From what I've read so far, the CX-9 has a nice quality interior, better than the CX-7, so that's a good thing!

Yes, the CX-9 has tremendous quality, nearly sound proof interior. It is leaps and bounds over the CX-7. High quality materials all around. They did a nice job. Personally, I think it has higher quality materials and better fit and finish then the Honda Pilot and Toyota Highlander. Toyota is not known for their interiors or style, but, rather their long term reliability.

audia8q

avi....I parked my Lincoln MKX demo and started driving a CX-9 last week....the ride & drive is better and quieter and I like the way it shifts alot better...I never thought I would see the day that I would like a Mazda product over a similar segment Lincoln product but it happened. Mazda has a big winner here.

DISCLOSURE ALERT.....For the whiners who want full disclosure - I am a multi-franchise dealer.

sssfegy

Have you guys noticed how quick the stick shift mode works? It is quicker to shift than in the CX7.

ux149

I fell in love with the Enclave when I saw the first photos from the Detroit show. And while production vehicles cannot replicate concept vehicles, I'm greatly disappointed that the second and third rows both have lost their center console for now. The Buick website still has the second row console in their 360 degree interior view, so hopefully it will be available soon.

And dealers, dbt is not alone in his belief that dealers should frequently diclose the fact that they represent a manufacturer. Not to say that a dealer would be dishonest, in fact they probably have much more access and experience with the vehicle that they are describing than the rest of us. I drove two very similar Outlooks and they just did not feel the same to me at all. Was it different tire pressures, different seat adjustments? Who knows. A dealer who has driven a dozen of them would know how they feel overall.

But a dealer is like anyone else, and unless you really dislike what you're driving now, then every test drive is a "how does this measure up to what I'm used to driving." I went from a Thunderbird to a Cherokee to an SC400 to a 4-Runner to an S-Type to an Escalade to a 300C AWD in the last 15 years and every time, it was a "here's what I'm missing in my current car" purchase. I'm hoping a CUV will be just the thing.

So, please let us know if you're a dealer. We'll respect your knowledge more and suspect only a wee bit of bias.

explorerx4

audia8q has that info in his profile, which is a good idea. i guess i have been posting here long enough to know that he is.

arumage

The Enclave is a sweet looking vehicle. I'd test drive one if I thought I could afford it. (Even though it's a GM product). I was not impressed by the Acadia seating though. Both 2nd and 3rd rows were very close to the floor.

Just as a background, my cars have been:

1988 Ford Aerostar
1995 Olsmobile Cutlass Supreme Sedan :lemon:
1996 Toyota Camry CE
1999 Toyota Camry LE
2000 Dodge Intrepid ES

The best of all of them was the first one. Not a thing went wrong with the Aerostar. No failures of any kind. Not even a sensor. Both Camry's were wonderful too. I can vouch for the 1996 Camry's safety too. :sick:

albook

Let's talk about the highlander. Improvement-100% Class leader-100% NO WAY
Looks way better, but still lacks alot of features luke split row 3 bench. And for the price, I can get a better eqquipped Acadia. ('06= 35 for loaded without DVD/navi. Same for Acadia without these options) plus with acadia you get so much more...

readerreader

You wouldn't be able to afford it, and it'd eat into usable space.