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
Yes. But some people is trying compare CUV with vans. Their size, driving abilities and ect. It's like someone called TX - crossover. I think, it is more a oversize wagon. TX is almost same Height – at Curb as Taurus 61.5 to 67.4.
It's a lot difference way to choose a car. SUV, Van, CUV all have close propose for use. In my opinion vans came more from car-wagon base idea, and CUV came from SUV base idea. That's why I said early GM crossovers more SUV , then car base idea, if you understood what I have meant to say.
Funny thing is the Journey basically replaced the SWB Caravan in the lineup.
It should compete with the Rondo and Mazda5, but I think it's a bit bigger, so it may be cross-shopped with the bigger crossovers as well.
http://www.carspace.com/blogs/AlternateRoute/Ask-Dub-Schwartz-10
Don't shoot the messenger!
It's a unibody. Car? Check. (Well, wagon is more like it, but still.)
It offers the most cargo room and seating positions (8). Minivan? Check.
All weather ability? AWD, stability control, elevated seating position for visibility. SUV? Check.
Each competitor will lean more towards one or the other, but it's not a full-frame trucks and it lacks sliding doors. When it defies classification as one of the others (SUV, minivan), that's precisely what makes it a crossover.
But then again, who's to say what a CUV is or isn't? (!)
The Pacifica is a sad story to me. It had so much potential. But it was never redesigned. This is only the fault of Chrysler, who is arguably the most unstable of the big 3 (And Ford is worst off- but that's off subject). If they would have remoldeled it to compete with the Acura MDX, gave it more power (like 290 hp) maybe even a V8 option, it would have sold well. But what's done is done.
And it handles and performs better than an average SUV of that size would. I'd say that's sport enough.
I agree. When the Pacifica came out, it was a big hit. They should have redesigned it. I'm sure it would have done ok. BTY, Ford is turning things around, infact, I have sat and driven a few of their newer vehicles, and they have really stepped it up in terms of materials used and quality. According to many reliability surveys, they are doing much much better too. Remember, in the 3rd quarter this year, they showed a profit! Neither Chrysler or GM have showed a profit recently. Ford will rebound, not to where it used to be, but, they will be ok.
Totally off subject, it seems that the new Malibu might really do well for GM. It's nice to see American brands getting back to business.
Also, Pacifica was one of the first, so competitors had the advantage of waiting to see what worked and what didn't, and then refining the idea.
Even though it looks like Pacifica will get the axe, the Dodge Journey (sort of) takes its place as Chrysler Corp's crossover. So they still offer one, just under a different name and brand:
I finally got it. The automakers is pushing very hard to make line of CUV, that will be looks and drives like oversize station wagon. It should be 7 seats, size close to mid-size SUV, not a bigger, and not looks like a van, drives like a car with AWD option. The GM crossovers little too big to call them crossovers.
The problem I see in that a 30,$$$ and higher. It should be in price range 25,000 to 35,000 with all options.
Back in the 1991-96 Chevrolet was produced Caprice Wagon with third row seat. I think it was one of the first crossover-wagon. By the way it's almost same size as a TX.
Well, you said the Caprice Wagon was the first Crossover (all of these cars are wagons).
And in my opinion, NO Crossovers are for off-road. If you want off-road, get a true SUV or pickup. AWD is for foul-weather and soft-roading; not running through gullywashers.
Well, Taurus X is a WAGON, but someone called it CUV. It's like call a VW wagon a CUV, or AUDI allraod, Volvo wagon and .........
This argument has been hashed out around here long before this latest festival of insight...
Now in our days, any small SUV called CUV. Escape, CRV, RAV ..... all these are small SUV's, but automakers called them CUV for selling propose.
In world how do you can compare Escape or RAV with Acadia or CX-9? The first ones are made as cans, the last ones real good vehicles.
As for your argument regarding what you call small SUV's now being called CUV's for marketing purposes the early ravs/escape/crv that you mention were entries into and or created a smaller SUV market. They were not called CUV's at the time of their introduction due to the fact the CUV market really did not exist. Current marketing has moved them into the CUV market as they are more worried about on road as opposed to off road capabilities.
As for comparing the early SUV/CUV's you mentioned with the current crop of CUV's does not make sense or really speak to the point. They are all CUV's now. they all have their different good/bad points and comparing a generation 1 escape/rav to a lambda/cx really is a moot point as they have evolved and occupy different segments of the same CUV market.
And, your "can" comment baffles me. I'd wager you haven't driven vehicles like the new CR-V.
And, any small SUV is not called a CUV. Heard of a Jeep Wrangler or Liberty? Toyota FJ Cruiser? Small "SUVs" are not called CUVs because they are small. They are called CUVs when they ARE CUVs, such as...
Acura RD-X
BMW X3
Honda Element, CR-V
Hyundai Tuscon
Mitsubishi Outlander
Saturn Vue
Toyota RAV4
All of these small Crossovers are, in fact, Crossover vehicles.
Funny thing is I'd put those in 3 different classes.
The Magnum is a plain ol' wagon, a muscle wagon if you prefer. I don't even think theirs had AWD.
The Tribeca is a crossover. And they tested a 7 passenger model, too.
The Volvo is inbetween. I'd call it a wagon, I suppose, but Volvo claims that more people go off road in an XC70 than an XC90.
That's not saying much. I bet 0.002% of XC70 owners go off road, while 0.001% of XC90 owners go off road.
Any how, point is, even the magazines are clearly confused about how to categorize many of these vehicles with blended characteristics.
Keep in mind Volvo sells these cars all over the globe. I bet, if you go to Europe, Asia, Australia, or Africa, these vehicle do get used off road. Maybe not rock-climbing, but certainly far more so than they do here.
Bob
His Civic manages in those conditions, though I'm sure an XC70 would fare a lot better. His wife's Xsara Picasso does better than the Civic.
I wonder how American eyes would perceive people movers like the Picasso and the Renault Megane Scenic. In Brazil, at least, AWD isn't an option on either one. Yet they are taller than the XC70.
So, are these crossovers?
I would also say that Volvo promotes off-road use in their vehicles, as that is how they are advertising them now here in the States.
Subaru also promotes off-road use of their Outback, and Subaru claims that it is an SUV by saying in their commercials "the Outback is the most fuel efficient SUV". I think we will all respectfully disagree with the SUV statement. It's a wagon, just like the XC-70, Audi All-Road.
Not exactly. You have look under the SUV tab at fordvehicles.com to view the Escape and Escape Hybrid. Ford classifies it with the Explorer, Expedition, and SportTrac.
Honda doesn't say much about what the CR-V is but they do say the following on their CR-V "Performance" page:
"The MacPherson strut front suspension handles speed bumps so well, you may not remember you're in an SUV. And all CR-V models offer available Real Time 4-wheel drive™, to help increase performance on adverse road conditions."
Toyota also lists the RAV-4 as an SUV on their site.
So it seems just being car based isn't enough to classify a tall, wagon-like vehicle as a CUV. At least not for the mfrs anyway.
The Outback, allroad, and XC70 are hard to categorize, but they're basically raised wagons.
nothing hard about it, as you said, they are simply wagons with raised ride height and some off road capability to wander down the graded dirt road to the summer house.
They are based on their wagon counterparts that came before them plain and simple not a lick of SUV to them.
25 NX 450h+ / 24 Sienna Plat AWD / 23 Civic Type-R / 21 Boxster GTS 4.0 / 03 Montero Ltd
Audi doesn't make the Allroad anymore.
Apparently they have a new one comming out this spring.
Volvo just put out a new XC70 as well.
They do categorize the Outback with trucks but I think it qualifies under a loophole as a multi-purpose vehicle, just like the PT Cruiser (even more absurd).
Still, Subaru calling the Outback an SUV is still quite a stretch.
See? That's what happens when you serve free alcohol at the Regional Sales Meetings.
I think I hurt myself when I fell out of my chair after hearing that one!! LMAO!
Is that when they came up with the Zoom Zoom ad for the 2.3l 4 cylinder Tribute?
Their newer crossovers are much better efforts.
Is that when they came up with the Zoom Zoom ad for the 2.3l 4 cylinder Tribute?
That guy is no longer employed with Mazda. Last I heard, he was working for Saab, and his newest thing is "Born From Jets".
Hmm, jets that don't fly. Interesting concept! :P
After all the drama Chrysler has been in, at least we could say they make good looking cars. Then they made the new Sebring. Then the Avenger. Then this...
Not that hard to explain. CUv sales WAAAAYYYYY up. Even owners of '06-07 SUVS trading in for CUVs. So dealers have an overstock of Tahoes and 4Runners and have to slash prices. Now those in the market for used are finally realizing how much the prices have dropped.
I think it was Karl that made the statement "that buyers are realizing that CUVs don't really get much better gas mileage and can't do as much. So we know that he doesn't have a Trailblazer in his garage. Plus, how many people who buy a new fullsize SUV really need what it can "do"? 1 out of 5?
http://blogs.edmunds.com/Straightline/3847
Bob
The way the market is going, I forsee more SUVs designed exclusively for off roading like Jeep Cherokees and Toyota FJ cruisers and of course Range Rovers.
I guess that's catchier than "Born from the Epsilon platform, which also underpins the old Chevy Malibu".
I guess the marketing folks can pretty much say whatever they want.
While we're on that topic, though, what do Saab, BMW, and Subaru all have in common?
Saab doesn't have a crossover so that's not it...
For sure, they are more comfortable, quicker, handle better and better on fuel
A friend of mine is looking at the CX-9 as a replacement for his wifes troublesome, inefficient Suburban. The runner up is a new Highlander apparently. That one, I haven't driven yet.
Anyone make the comparison on those two yet? I'm looking at it from more of a mileage and handling/accident avoidance perspective than acceleration/looks/quality (both are well respected) depts. I would like to replace my wifes 03' MDX with one of those if I can't talk her in to an Outback.
The Highlander is a big quicker and a tad bit more fuel efficient, by 1mpg. The CX has better handling, cornering, breaking. The Highlander does not have RSC and a 5-speed tranny compared to Mazda's 6-speed. Auto climate control for the CX standard, option for the Highlander. The CX has more passenger room, especially in the 2nd and 3rd row. The CX has quite a bit more space behind the 3rd row as well. As far as looks go, that is totally subjective. Personally, I cannot stand the look of the rear end on the Toyota. Really, you need to look at both back to back and form your own opinion. Good luck.