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
On the one hand, it's a Mazda, not a Lexus, and not even an Acura. So if you want premium quality interiors, you need to be shopping one class above Mazda I think (I own an 08 CX9). You will pay slightly more for the Acura equivalent to the CX9, and MUCH more to get similar space as the CX9 in the case of Lexus.
On the other hand, the base or even tech package Acura is selling right around the CX9's GT price, and the fit, finish and design of the Acura interior (with the exception of the cluttered center console) is a notch above.
We're going forward not backward these days it seems.
At least Nissan finally got interior quality back on track (the Altimas I sat in were noticeably better than their predecessors from two years ago). I have seen the interior of the new Murano and it looks uptown.
Mazda does use a lot of plastics, however, they are quality plastics, and they are put together very well. Name one vehicle, that is non luxury, that does not utilize plastic? Honda and Toyota, industry leaders in "quality" utilize just as much plastics. The "nicer to the touch" materials weigh more, that is why every mfgr is trying to stay away from them. More weight, less fuel economy.
Did you sit in one with the sand interior? That does not look at rich as the black interior. The black has a very nice feel to it.
Compared to others in this class, the CX-9 is top tier in build quality.
Still, it was better than its little sister the CX-7, which just felt junky compared to the Mazda6, which wasn't half bad.
Compared with the Pilot, which is an old design, I'd give the inteior quality nod to the Honda in a heartbeat.
I see. I have not really heard that at all. From what I have seen, and the numerous people that I show them to every day, they seem to think otherwise. I respect your opinion, though. You felt that the climate controls felt loose? Very odd. Other then that area, what did you think about the rest of the vehicle?
Compared with the Pilot, which is an old design, I'd give the interior quality nod to the Honda in a heartbeat.
I will respectively disagree there. I have a 2006 Pilot on my lot, as a used vehicle, and I do not see how the Pilot compares.
Still, it was better than its little sister the CX-7, which just felt junky compared to the Mazda6, which wasn't half bad.
I have never been a huge fan of the interior of the CX-7. I felt they did go a little cheap there. I have a 2005 Mazda6, and the quality is far superior in the 6 then the CX-7.
We're going forward not backward these days it seems.
Grad, you've stated on the mid-size sedans thread that you sat in an '08 Accord and felt it's interior was low-rent compared to your 12-year old Accord. Why then are you picking on Mazda when Honda is doing it too?
You mentioned the Pilot in a later post. Do you think it's interior will be better in the '09 or will it follow the Accord's?
Actually, autos.com quotes that number from their reviews.
I'd bet that all CUVs handle better
Let me ask, then, what exactly do you mean by handling? :confuse:
We've showed that accident avoidance times (emergency lane change) are quite a bit slower, and that lateral Gs are similar.
Then you start quoting 0-60? Quick acceleration from a dead stop is not the same thing as good handling, at least not to me. Any how, that varies too much so we'd have to narrow it down to a few models and compare.
What do you mean when you say "handles better"?
* the way it handles a speed bump
* the way it handles around a turn (on- and off-ramps)
* the way it handles sudden lane changes
* steering feel and feedback
* ride isolation
* 0-60mph (to me that's not handling at all ???)
:confuse:
You mentioned the Pilot in a later post. Do you think it's interior will be better in the '09 or will it follow the Accord's?
You pose a very valid question; thanks for asking it as it will help me clarify for other readers.
The Pilot has interior quality that (in my opinion
My 12-year old Accord quality is just a high-standard I use as a measuring stick, and isn't meant to be strictly pro-Honda, since a LOT has changed with Honda over a decade. It is supposed to show how things were in the 1990s, and what little ground we've covered in making interiors "feel" more expensive. If anything, we're moving backwards, and most if not ALL automakers are guilty of this.
The new Accord was a just okay compared with the previous generations. I'd be hopeful that they keep the quality up in the new Pilot, but my fear is that they are slowly cheapening them one-by-one.
Does my rationale make sense? I hope so. I'm really trying to maintain some objectivity here, model by model.
PS - Maybe the CX-9 at the auto show was just mercilessly beat on from auto-show duty? I've seen it before, but the one they had made a bad first impression. Looked great though, design-wise.
It is sad, but none of these cars take my breath away. It is hard to get excited about purchasing a new car when you turn-on the the car and it does not return the favor.
We are trying to make the transition from the minivan to another useful platform (that is not a minivan), but from my wife's perspective, the current CSUVs lack personal space (ie..a place for her purse, small bags, feels small inside, etc...) and the SUVs are not green enough (Thanks, Al)
The problem is the consoles for these vehicles tend to dominate the interior. The CX9 was really bad in this area (there is the great wall of Mazda between the driver and passenger). It does not bother me, but she does not feel comfortable with it.
She needs a car that can combines the interior space (feel) of the minivan with the look and feel of the CSUV.
It is great that we live in a country where we are fortunate enough to discuss trivial issues like this! Freedom is a great thing! Thank a Vet today!
The same is true in a lot of cases. I guess its a good thing that no cars at the auto show this year made me wish I had it (cars in my price range that is
Have a great Veteran's Day.
It could be. I have seen my fair share of beaten show cars at auto shows. I was at the 2007 New York International Auto Show, and one Audi I sat in had broken buttons, and a missing shift knob.
The Mazda 6 I sat in was solid and firm in its actions. The CX-9 had buttons and knobs that felt less-than-upscale.
Then again, the 6 isn't too popular right now. Everybody has seen one, so it probably gets much less autoshow traffic.
But did they actually test that number?
Let me ask, then, what exactly do you mean by handling? Then you start quoting 0-60? Quick acceleration from a dead stop is not the same thing as good handling, at least not to me. Any how, that varies too much so we'd have to narrow it down to a few models and compare.
Where do you get that avoidance times are better? And I know for a fact that figure eights aren't better in vans.
My main point is that minivans weren't made for handling, but for comfort. You don't need to continue to try to prove your purchase choice of a minivan is superior to that of a CUV, because the points, as well as the entire stament is becoming irrelevant.
I started quoting 0-60 times to undermine your statement that most minivans are quicker, bringing the statemnt to your point of veiw. As I said, the only van faster than CUVs was the Sienna, which I strongly doubt does it in 6.7. And the Caravan does it at best in 8.1- the same as the Outlook, Acadia and Enclave (from Motortrend).
I will agree with whoever said the Build quality of the Pilot is better than that of the CX-9. The materials aren't as attractive, but build quality is better. I'd say the same with the Acadia- not as good as Pilot, but better than CX-9, not as attractive. Outlook as nice as or exceeds, and the Enclave exceeds.
It was me who said this, and I agree!
As I said, the only van faster than CUVs was the Sienna, which I strongly doubt does it in 6.7. And the Caravan does it at best in 8.1- the same as the Outlook, Acadia and Enclave (from Motortrend).
Car and Driver has the Sienna at 7.2 seconds to 60 MPH. The DGC did the same run in 8.0 flat.
The Crossovers typically have more power than do the minivans, perhaps to satisfy the V8 owners who moved from Tahoes and Expeditions down to more efficient SUVs.
Ahhh, ok, in that case I have to disagree.
I think you may have indeed just gotten a bad one. I actually think the AC knobs are the most quality thing about the interior, other than the leather itself. Either that, or it's a subjective thing.
The knobs are a soft touch rubber that move appropriately slowly. I love them!
However, please note that a three year old climbing from the second row into the front row WILL take off the knobs of the rear passenger A/C unit. Don't ask how I know that.
Completely OT, but today I was driving up a parking garage ramp in my 08 GT (20" wheels), hit a concrete barrier, and blew BOTH tires (front and rear) out. Huge gashes in the sidewall. 20" tires are about 2 months old. Nice huh? Getting ready to see how much those bad boys cost a LOT sooner than I was hoping for.
I was dreading it, but didn't think I had to dread it so soon.
Also, fyi, it took Mazda roadside assist about 5.5 hours to get someone there and this is after I called them about 15 times (having to repeat the SAME info each time).
Finally they told me, after I called AGAIN after about the 4th hour, that their people could not get into the parking garage with a clearance of 8' 4" so I would somehow have to get it out myself. I asked why they didn't let me know hours ago, and her response was basically "well it wasn't me handling it before"
Man was I p.o'd. Anyway...I hope I never need their "assistance" in a real emergency.
I will bet that had I gone with the 18" tires, this would not have happened. I was shocked at the results considering how slowly I was going! Couldn't believe it did all that damage.
Sigh...
good luck with the next set.
with the replacements put the new tires on one end and the "old" tires on the the other to take into account what wear you have incurred on the one's you have not that it sounds like it should be that much wear but it should help.
I would have to agree with you on this subject. I sell Toyotas and the quality has gone down in comparison to the offerings of the early to mid 90's. Toyota was building a Lexus with Toyota badges back then. Quality lapses began with the 97 Camry. They called it "decontenting" a bean counters word for "cheapening" a product. First it was the ugly cloth they used for the interiors. The flimsy cup holders for the rear passengers. The paint process skipped a few tests as evidenced by my 93 Camry that has bright and lustrous paint as opposed to the 97 which has a dull, faded finish. Scratches on this one are beginning to turn into rust.
What's even more sad, is the new Landcruiser 2008. I got to see it today for the first time and other than it looks like a big Highlander, which looks like a big RAV4, it is nothing to write home about. The interiors screams "cheap, cheap" I can't believe Toyota Motors Japan really expects us Americans to dish out over 70k for this piece of junk.
Mackabee
farout
I will check in to the "wagons" thread for more info on the Pacs. Thanks.
It does seem like a big waste of space to me too. The could have front armrests on the seats, since the center console is never at the right level to use as an armrest when you're right arm is on the steering wheel. The shifter could be on the dash like a minivan, and there could be a fold up tray in between the front seats, like a minivan.
But then again, if you're looking for practical, you not really looking at a big CUV anyway.
C&D got 7.2, even Consumer Reports reached 60mph in the 7s, and they're slow pokes. Any how, doesn't matter, power is plentiful.
The accident avoidance times were also from CR. The speeds for their accident avoidance maneuver/lane change, basically. We talked about that a lot a while ago, you must have missed it. They had an issue with several crossovers and it actually surprised me that all the speeds were consistently slow (even the Zoom Zoom CX9).
minivans weren't made for handling, but for comfort
No argument there. But do you honestly think crossovers were made for handling? :confuse:
There are a couple of exceptions - I think the Subaru Tribeca and the Mazda CX9 do handle well overall, at least for their size. The others that I drove certainly didn't stand out in the area of handling, no better than the average van.
It's hard to make my point without being critical, so here goes.
The Pilot felt trucky after driving it back to back with the Ody. The Outlook was beefy, but cumbersome and anything but nimble. The Freestyle was just soft. The RX350 is ultra-soft. The previous generation Highlander was also soft.
They're comfortable too, which is fine.
Can you honestly say you think they don't handle?
The Pilot felt trucky after driving it back to back with the Ody. The Outlook was beefy, but cumbersome and anything but nimble. The Freestyle was just soft. The RX350 is ultra-soft. The previous generation Highlander was also soft
Can't disagree with you too much about the Pilot. But I think for its size the Outlook handles well- just as well as an Odessey, and is quicker and more nimble than CUVs 1000lbs lighter. You obviously haven't driven the Taurus X. And you totally cross the line when you say the RX doens't handle as well as a van. The RX may be soft in ride (it's suposed to; its a Lexus!) but it wipes the floor with any van in terms of handling (cornering agility etc), and pick up. The same for the Acura MDX and Cadillac SRX- and Infinity FX. You're talking about a whole different class of CUVs.
Remember, you said that a crossover loaded with 1200 lbs would handle like a minivan, not me. C&D's Enclave was 5300 lbs empty, IIRC, so you think at 6500 lbs it would handle as well as a van? :confuse:
I just think you're buying in to the image thing a bit too much.
Crossovers mostly have raised ground clearance and tend to weigh a lot. Handling isn't exactly the priority. They may handle better than SUVs, in most cases, sure, but they're not exactly known for their handling, either.
Outlook's engine is nice and it felt plenty adequte, but I would never call it quick.
I haven't driven the Taurus X, that's true.
RX is very smooth but it's tall and narrow, so body roll feels rather extreme. I've never liked the way it handles, so we simply disagree there. Perhaps it's a matter of expectations.
MDX, SRX, and FX are easily a price class higher than the ones we discuss here (Lambas, CX9, Veracruz, Tribeca, and Freestyle/Taurus X mostly).
Those definitely are a step up in terms of performance and handling, but they're also $40k plus.
I can't disagree with you and I'm not sure why some crossover's landed in the SUV board and some in the Wagons board. It would get really confusing if we added a Crossover board to the forum. Lots of overlap going on.
If you go to the Crossover Center at Edmunds, you'll find the Pacifica right in there.
Of course it also shows up under the Wagons link, but not on the SUVs one.
How exactly did that happen? You hit into a conrete barrier, or went up and over? Trying to figure out what would cause 2 blown tires...can't picture it
C&D just did and actually liked it. I thought for sure they would still call it mediocre. They really seemed to think Ford is on to something now. Too bad it's STILL being marketed very poorly.
I really wish I could get my wife to like the TX. It seems to be a very good compromise between a minivan and traditional SUV.
Hate to stray too much OT, (too late I guess, sorry), but I was going up the ramp in the parking garage, and there is a concrete barrier, much like the ones you see in front of parking spaces, but those have rounded edges for obvious reason, whereas this one did not - just a 90º angle, so that in conjunction with my turning sharply into that turn blew them out I guess. As someone mentioned, probably the rim cut the tire's sidewall.
I guess the barrier was about 12"-14" high.
Just me not paying attention really, but I swear I couldn't see those things!
Still, 16mpg is what scares me away. 0-60 in 7.7s is plenty adequate, by my van is still quicker and manages 19mpg, pretty significant edge when you factor the power/efficiency balance.
Both get 0.76g of lateral grip, and that's a Sienna handicapped with the smallest wheel and tire package available, just 215mm on 16" rims.
The FWD Taurus ran 0-60 in 6.8 seconds. I'd imagine the FWD Taurus would be a lot closer to 7 seconds than 8, probably right there with your van.
Also, with EPA ratings of 16/24, The Taurus X has combined fuel economy just as good as the Sienna, which has 17/23. The differences are equal with AWD in fuel economy as well.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
FWIW, C&D's last test of an RX yielded 0.73g of lateral grip in the first attempt and 0.71g in the 2nd. As mentioned earlier, the Highlander got 0.74g, and the Sienna got 0.76g.
C&D has not tested an RX350, but I have, and it does feel quick. I just don't agree with you about the handling part. Again, I think we have different ideas about what good handling means.
Cheers.
I don't know of any other reviews of the AWD model. CR tested them on the same day, same track, back to back. They said they tested both because it was the only AWD option for vans.
They got 19mpg with FWD (same as C&D), and 18mpg with AWD.
Ford's AWD system is different, so you could very well be right about the FWD model being quicker in that case.
I got FWD because we have another AWD car, a Legacy. That's the one I hope to replace with another AWD vehicle, not exactly sure what yet.
What are you talking about? That comment made no sense. I said nothing like this. And the Enclave only wieghs 5000 lbs with AWD- 4700 with fwd.
Crossovers mostly have raised ground clearance and tend to weigh a lot. Handling isn't exactly the priority. They may handle better than SUVs, in most cases, sure, but they're not exactly known for their handling, either.
So you've never heard of MDX/RDX/SRX/ML/X5 etc. All known for their handling. on top of that, MDX/RDX and SRX sit right at the top of this comparison. For the price of a loaded Sienna, you could buy an MDX.
RX is very smooth but it's tall and narrow, so body roll feels rather extreme. I've never liked the way it handles, so we simply disagree there. Perhaps it's a matter of expectations.
I'll say it again. The RX is quicker than any van out there.
As I said before- this comparison is NOT about your van- or any van for that matter.
Again, you're bringing up some pricey luxury crossovers, and I thought the focus of this topic was the mainstream ones (Pilot, Highlander, CX9, Outlook, etc.).
That would actually explain our difference of opinion. The MDX, SRX, and FX certainly do handle better, no argument there.
RX may be quicker, but we were talking about handling. A quick car can handle poorly (for example every 1970s muscle car), while a slow car can handle quite well (for example my NA Miata).
RX350 is quick, I agree, no argument there either.
You guys ask me to drop the talk about vans, yet you keep bringing it up!
I think this is a bit of a myth. At MSRP, a Sienna can hit $42k, but Fitzgerald Toyota sells these at no haggle prices and you can just walk in and pay about $37.5k for the priciest of the 80 Siennas they have in stock without being a good negotiator.
Keep in mind that has laser cruise control, HIDs, AWD, DVD and GPS, heated leather, power folding 3rd row, power sliding doors and power tailgate, etc. It's basically a Lexus without the badge.
I believe an MDX starts at over $40k, with those options (minus the power sliding doors of course) I think it would be flirting with $50 grand list price.
It performs a lot better but it costs a whole bunch more. Arguably worth it if you can afford it, but my price range was ~$30k and the MDX wasn't even on my radar. A 3 year old CPO MDX could have been, I suppose. Not new.
In my opinion you can't compare luxury cars with non luxury cars. You can compare Lexus vs Acura or Cadillac, or BMW....... and Toyota with GMC, Honda, Nissan......
I was quoting prices from a no-haggle dealer, basically representative of what people actually pay for them, or what I call "street prices".
I agree that we should compare Toyota to Honda, Subaru, Mazda, Saturn, GMC, Ford, and even other Toyotas, but not Acuras.
Good point. :shades:
probably in an effort to keep the argument he was making on an apples/apples even footing as opposed to you making your argument with numbers that may be available in your area of the country at one specific dealer which you were shilling for as opposed to someone elses that might not be as generous with their pricing.
My guess is in vad's area what YOU call the "street prices"(thanks for inventing the term by the way) for a savy buyer for both marques could be somewhat less to varying degrees than the MSRP's...
We can compare base cars with no options and their price. If we will compare pilot with acadia: Pilot - 28,230 FWD . Acadia - $29,990.00 FWD These two cars have almost identical options included in this price . Then look financing, driving experience, warranty and trade in value your old car. Then you can say one of these cars better.
Very few people pay MSRP nowadays. Even for very hot cars MSRP pricing doesn't hold up for long.
Some brand new cars come out and already have rebates, hence MSRP is really a fictional number even on day one for some vehicles.
And wait a second, aren't you the one that argued that the Freestyle was a bargain because they sold for $21k?
So you tend to use actual prices paid, like I did.
Anyone can look at the Prices Paid forums right here on Edmunds, the vehicles he was comparing just are not in the same price range.
I believe C&D's Sienna was under $30 grand, their MDX was close to $49 grand. Not exactly in the same ball park.
yes I was and it was because I was arguing it was the better "value" than the others that people were paying near MSRP/list for because it was the shiney new thing in the market. Hence the context and point were completely different.
Check the Prices Paid forums, noone is paying MSRP, not even close. The funny thing is the rebate here in MD is actually low, in Ohio you could get a price about $750 lower. The prices I quoted were on the high side.
In this situation, the MDX is the shiny new thing selling for close to MSRP. At least when I was shopping earlier this year. Wasn't 2007 the first model year?
To be honest I haven't looked lately. What do MDXs sell for nowadays?
I'll take a look and be right back, maybe I'm wrong and they're suddenly discounting them $4 grand off MSRP.
Be right back.
41005
46.6k out the door (so lower without taxes, etc)
43.2 about a month ago on long island
+Tax: $3,848.99
Total: $48,474.99 (subtract the tax, so 44 and change)
you actually paid about $43767 for the vehicle itself
The MDX is an excellent crossover, no doubt. C&D's tests reveal how well it handles, and they come very well equipped.
The cost more and are arguably worth every penny, but this is an entirely different price range.
Sienna prices paid ranges up to about $38k as reported here on edmunds. No overlap that I can see.