Crossover SUV Comparison

albook

Oh-so you are considering other CUV's? I was just commenting on the fact that the nitro is a real SUV, therefore having nothing to do with vehichles like the Acadia.

albook

Actually, the acadia 3rd row is a good deal wider than the Cruz/CX9, unlike the Pilot, which is just 3 seatbelts in a 2 person space compartment. Even if you can only sit 2 adults back there comfortably, it would be a lot more comfrtable than 2 sitting right next to each other in the CX9.
Sidenote- I think someone on edmunds is getting a little confused. Durango on a unibody platform (crossover? that's the JX49's job. And isn't ford going to replace Explorer with an extended Edge? Also. Would'nt it be something if Chrysler did build an SuV off of the SUburban?! I wanna see it! Even though I don't think Chrysler needs.it as Aspen is one of the best for features, power and space in the segment.

rockfish1

The purist definition for a CUV verses an SUV is not part of the requirements for the vehicle I am searching for. That is why I often refer to my next car/truck/CUV/SUV as a vehicle.
As for the Acadia, it is a unibody not a body on frame vehicle and the Nitro is an onroad not offroad Jeep Liberty. Both these to me have a lot in common in that they were primarily
made for hard road surfaces,
have a rugged look more so than the Veracruz, Pilot, Freestyle and CX-9,
have decent MPG,
have adequate starting power, excellent stopping ability, and
have good luggage capacity (even though they will not haul 4x8 sheets on plywood like my minivan).

Thus far the best 2 candidates IMO are the Nitro and Acadia.

arumage

The CX-9 is narrower than the Veracruz. The Veracruz is only 1" narrower than the Acadia. If you look at the picture below, you can see a 6' man stretch his legs across the 3rd row without touching the other side.

albook

I had the chance to get in a R-class Mercedes, and even though it is actually longer than the Acadia, I didn't get the feeling that it was that massive either.
If you think the Acadia is massive, then the R is HUMONGOUS. It looks like a big station wagon. I like it-I have to admit, but If I'm going to spend 54g's then that is too awkward looking for me. I'm getting the G-whichhas more interior space in every dimension, and looks better. Oh, and they will have a diesel in the summer for less. Only thing it lacks is captains in row 2. If I want that kind of a vehicle, I'm saving 15 grand and getting a Pacifica. handles just as well, gets same gas mileage, and only thing it loses is third row leg room-which isn't that bad. I truthfully think-though a great vehicle, Benz messed up with the R. It doen't really fit anywhere.It's bigger than the more space efficient G. But if it were a foot smaller, it would be too close to the M- which would easily outsell b/c of sportiness. Moms don't want a minivan-which is what it reminds me of. Was that was benz was trying to make? cuz it pales in comparison to one.

barnstormer64

I'm saving 15 grand and getting a Pacifica. handles just as well, gets same gas mileage, and only thing it loses is third row leg room-which isn't that bad.

I take it you're very small, or haven't actually tried to get into the back seat of a Pacifica. And, those things are HEAVY.

A Freestyle (Taurus X) will accelerate better and have a lot more room in the 3rd row.

coldcranker

I'd prefer a Freestyle/TaurusX myself, but with the low reliability rating (statistical survey) in the CR 2007 Buying Guide giving the Freestyle a black-dot, I'd probably get a stripped Saturn Outlook. The Pacifica is very wide, with all the tumble-home taking up the interior space, creating a wastefull platform compared to the Freestyle or Outlook. If you need the room, the Outlook is hard to beat in today's market.

seloo

Stripped Outlook! 3-6 years of, I wish I had purchased this option, or "no, my car does not have that option", "what option does you car have?" = buyer's remorse! Find a car with the most options you can afford. In the long-run you may be happier with you purchase. Unless you must have a car today, take your time and shop around, you may find exactly what you a looking for.

freealfas

"I'd prefer a Freestyle/TaurusX myself, but with the low reliability rating (statistical survey) in the CR 2007 Buying Guide giving the Freestyle a black-dot, I'd probably get a stripped Saturn Outlook. The Pacifica is very wide, with all the tumble-home taking up the interior space, creating a wastefull platform compared to the Freestyle or Outlook. If you need the room, the Outlook is hard to beat in today's market."

Buy the FS in FWD and take out a whole avenue for problems that may or may not happen. If you think CR is the final say in any of this then just stop reading now. There are plenty of Feestyle's that have been making their owners very happy with few or no problems, I'm one...

barnstormer64

I've owned at least 4 vehicles now that CR has given black dots, and didn't have any more problems with the vehicle than my brothers did driving their "non black dot" Toyotas and Hondas.

Since I know I'm not the lucky type, I'll assume that CR is flawed . . either that, or those who tend to buy the imports (eg, higher cash out the door) are also more likely to better maintain their vehicles (since this also requires cash out the door).

Doesn't ANYBODY think that perhaps there's a correlation with keeping up with maintenance and how much a person spends for the vehicle off the showroom floor?

There's also the problem of the "sliding scale" for those dots. If every vehicle on the planet improved 10-fold, they'd STILL rate the ones with the most complaints as black-dots . . even if those complaints were minor.

arumage

More room in the 3rd row... yes, very much so. The Pacifica's 3rd row sucks.

Accelerate better... doubtful. The CX-9 can't even out-accelerate the '07 Pacifica (7.4 seconds). The '07 pacifica is geared pretty aggressively. With the little bit more weight that will be tacked onto the '08 Freestyle, it will probably weight about the same as the CX-9.

arumage

The R-class is humongous, but IMHO it did not "feel" as humongous as the Acadia. The R320CDI, granted it's a diesel, gets 21/28 mpg. I hope you like the GL-class and not the G-class. The G-class is the most butt-ugly thing I've ever seen. The GL-class is not space efficient though. It is more of a Ford Explorer/Chevy Tahoe type vehicle than a crossover. Mercedes specializes in niche vehicles anyway. I don't really think the minivan-esque shape of the vehicle hinders sales a bit.

sellstar1

Test drove both vehicles today as we're looking for a replacement for the wife's 2002 Millennia. Have been very happy with the Mazda and decided to wait on the 9 before making a purchase. Have driven a Touring and Grand Touring. While both offer a flurry of features and near luxury, the GT had a better ride and nicer interior, according to my wife. I suppose the 20" tires had something to do with the ride. She was impressed with the tight steering, the massive (and quick reacting) brakes and the interior room. She doesn't get excited about automobiles much so I was surprised by her enthusiasm for this vehicle.

I drove the Acadia next, opting for the SEL2 (?) package, highest trim package available according to the salesman. Interior looked cheap compared to the Mazda, though it had more creature features included. Ride was more like an SUV or truck instead of a crossover. While about $6,000 more than the Mazda GT we drove, it seemed to be a lower valued product. I was pretty surprised after reading what many had posted and what I had read on the Acadia.

We tried to figure out why GM would bring this product to market at such a higher price compared to what their competitors are doing...but couldn't understand.

We've figured out whichever one we buy -- probably the Mazda - we'll get the remote start feature. The GMC salesman handed the remote start devcie to my 7 year old who started the car from inside the dealership. Sold my wife right on the spot for those cold mornings.

Thanks to all on Edmunds who have posted such great info on these vehicles.

nxs138

We tried to figure out why GM would bring this product to market at such a higher price compared to what their competitors are doing...but couldn't understand.

The base models are priced nearly the same (at nearly $30k), but the Acadia seems to get more expensive than the CX-9 when you add similar options, especially in the highest trim levels. I wasn't blown away by the hard plastics inside the Acadia, but they were nicely textured.

But no matter what, a base price $30k for these CUVs is rather high. I guess they see Acura charging a base price of $40k for their new MDX, and got to thinking that $30k wasn't a bad price.

rockfish1

The base model Acadia is my preference but the 30K price is high. This is one reason why I am waiting and hoping for the large rebates to start for it to compete with my other choice of the mid size Nitro. If GM splits the difference between the middle grade Nitro ($25K) and the base Acadia that would push me to the larger Acadia.

GM can always lower the price by rebates but would take a hit by raising the base price.

nxs138

It's an interesting gamble for GM: they typically price their cars lower than the Japanese competition, but this time they are right there with them. Prices will likely go down with rebates, but then again the Acadia is slightly larger than the rest, so there is some value there.

What's also interesting is the pricing of the Enclave: once you load up the higher trim (AWD CXL) with NAV, sunroof, luxury/convenience package, you start approaching the price of the new MDX that is loaded with the TECH and Entertainment package (i.e. $44k for Enclave, $45.7 for MDX). I'm eager to see how that one will play out, since people who typically buy luxury vehicles tend to load them up on options (i.e., I don't think there will be many "base" Enclaves sold).

white6

is always interesting, though I could do without the "I don't like/want it, so you are an idiot to like/want it," contributors. Styling is subjective. Just because you dislike it, doesn't make it "ugly." It just means you don't like it. Okay, now that I got that off my chest, I'll move on to my real reason for posting here. I have my own business and, as a result, tax implications can color my choice of vehicle. I have looked at and driven the Outlook and was very impressed with both the look and simplicity of the interior. It had an excellent handling/ride compromise and was quiet. Decent power/acceleration and the transmission was very responsive. Brakes are very good without that over-boosted feel many, I know, prefer. A FWD XR-model equipped as I would prefer (leather package as only option) would price out at about $31,600. I was also going to look at the Mazda CX9, but after referencing Edmunds spec sheet I noticed it just misses on the GVWR. Outlook exceeds 6,000 lb GVWR and CX9 misses it by a few hundred pounds. This seemingly insignificant stat means $6,000 to $8,000 effective price disadvantage for the Mazda, as the Outlook qualifies for the more generous Section 179 vehicle deduction and the CX9 does not. I'm only mentioning this for those that can write-off their vehicle of choice. Not sure about the other vehicles included in this discussion, but if relevant to you, is certainly worth checking out.

rockfish1

Being able to load up with options is what I like since that keeps the base model more affordable. I like the functionality of the Acadia but do not what the extras like DVDs, sunroof, leather and Nav systems.

On the Edmunds incentive page for Acadia rebates totaling $2000 would apply for me. With a new model and rebates of 2K already, how far will they go!

nxs138

Don't you have to buy the vehicle outright to qualify for Section 179 (i.e. you can't lease)? Since I wouldn't be using the vehicle for business, I can't take advantage of this, but know of a few people who could, but they would rather lease, not buy outright.

tidester

the Outlook qualifies for the more generous Section 179 vehicle deduction and the CX9 does not

It's been rather quiet lately but you may want to look at the Vehicles that qualify for so-called SUV tax deduction for business discussion.

tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper

ux149

To take any depeciation on a vehicle, you must OWN it, not lease it. Depreciating a CUV does pose an interesting question. IRS Publication 946 states, "The maximum depreciation deductions for trucks and vans are higher than those for other passenger automobiles. This includes vehicles such as minivans and sport utility vehicles that are built on a truck chassis." The Lambda vehicles are built on more of a car chassis. So will the IRS consider these cars or trucks?

barnstormer64

. IRS Publication 946 states, "The maximum depreciation deductions for trucks and vans are higher than those for other passenger automobiles. This includes vehicles such as minivans and sport utility vehicles that are built on a truck chassis."

That's VERY poor wording, if they meant what I think they meant to imply.

They should've said:
"The maximum depreciation deductions for trucks and vans (including vehicles such as minivans and sport utility vehicles that are built on a truck chassis) are higher than those for other passenger automobiles."

As it is written, the second sentence appears to refer back to "other passenger automobiles".

bobw3

There are a lot of new CUV since I bought my Freestyle 2 years ago. Some big like the Acadia & Outlook, and some smaller like the Highlander. Plus you can get some for $25K while others start at $35K.

In my opinion, if you're really planning on using all three rows on a regular basis, then you really need a minivan. The space behind the 3rd row of the Odyssey/Sienna is over 40CuFt. Plus the 3rd row seating space is far superior to even the biggest CUV.

So the arguement that the Acadia is superior because it's taller, wider, and heavier isn't necessarily a good arguement for this segment. I think the key to a good CUV is small on the outside, as close to car-like handling as you can, and as roomy on the inside as you can get without creating a huge exterior.

barnstormer64

I think the key to a good CUV is small on the outside, as close to car-like handling as you can, and as roomy on the inside as you can get without creating a huge exterior.

Sounds like why I chose the Freestyle.

arumage

Ummm... the Freestyle is pretty big. It's the same size as the CX-9 and only 2" shorter than the Acadia. I'm not dissing it by any means. By the numbers, this seems to apply more to the Veracruz than others. While it may be a different story once we actually get to drive it, it has the most space available on the interior without be large on the exterior (9" shorter than the Freestyle).

All these crossovers are great for different reasons. The Acadia/Outlook/Enclave are the largest, easiest to get into the 3rd row, and has the best towing. The CX-9 is the sportiest and definitely has alot of style. The Freestyle offers great room, price, and fuel economy. The Veracruz offers the best maneuverability (small turning radius), small size with big room, and most likely price. The Pilot has rugged styling (if you like that), fairly good price, and good towing (4500 lbs w/ AWD). It all depends on what each person's priorities are.

coldcranker

"Since I know I'm not the lucky type, I'll assume that CR is flawed ..."

Your experiences do not represent the average experience. Your other points are well taken, though. When you say that all problem frequencies are getting smaller, thats true. Thats why I'm not too concerned with the low black-dot CR rating on my '05 Freestyle. It does mean I'm a little more likely than a Toyota owner to have more annoying problems. Thats all.

readerreader

The base model Acadia is my preference but the 30K price is high. This is one reason why I am waiting and hoping for the large rebates to start for it to compete with my other choice of the mid size Nitro. If GM splits the difference between the middle grade Nitro ($25K) and the base Acadia that would push me to the larger Acadia.

GM can always lower the price by rebates but would take a hit by raising the base price.
========================================================

You may quite simply be waiting forever. GM has been on a binge to cut rebates for the better part of a year now. They will never return--especially on popular models like the Acadia. So don't wait for large rebates--they won't be back.

seloo

You may quite simply be waiting forever. GM has been on a binge to cut rebates for the better part of a year now. They will never return--especially on popular models like the Acadia. So don't wait for large rebates--they won't be back.
------------------

Is this simply your opinion or do you have solid evidence to support your claim?

I agree that GM would like to cut rebates, but if others continue with rebates, GM could be priced out of the market.

Board members have already stated that $2K in rebates are available on this model. The next step is to get the dealers to come down on the asking price (this is a supply and demand issue that can only be corrected by market forces).

As we have already seen on the board, this market is a great opportunity for crossover buyers, Ford, DC, Mazda, and others will offer great deals on their products.

Waiting could be a prudent strategy.

rockfish1

My current vehicle is still running so I will be patient in waiting for the supply to increase and the deals to develop.

I also expect pricing competition between GM and Toyota to develop on which company will sell the most cars.

blue05

I found an article that compared the Outlook ,Freestyle and the Pacifica .The Freestyle can still hold its own .link title

albook

I take it you're very small, or haven't actually tried to get into the back seat of a Pacifica. And, those things are HEAVY. A Freestyle (Taurus X) will accelerate better and have a lot more room in the 3rd row.
At 6'3, the 3 row seat is tight, but none are that great besides the Freestyle and Acadia. What does the freestyle have to do with my comparison of the Rclass and PAcifica?There is no way with the new V6 that the Old freestyle can outrun the new PAcifica. The Taurus X might be a different story. The old Freestyle is SLOW.

albook

The G-class is the most butt-ugly thing I've ever seen.
YOu don't like the G? it's the best looking SUV on the planet! YOur CRAZY!
JUST kidding. Why would I be comparing a crossover van to a Range ROver wannabe that doesn't even have third row? TTHe GL is spce efficient compared to the R. At 4 inches longer, the R has 5 less cubic ft of cargo space. YO wouldn't like it because Vera CRuz main selling point is that it has more space (1 cu foot) than GL. Think how much less room you have in humongous R class. NOT PRoportional! Just went to Chi town Auto show, and Most of the veiwers of Acadia I heard said it lookedToo small to be a midsize crossover. Gm did a good job making it look small. And it doesn't look as porky as in some photos.

arumage

Space efficient in seating space and cargo space are two different things entirely. I sat in both the GL and R. The R is much more comfortable to sit in and get in and out of.

albook

Went to the Chicago autoshow yesterday. Great show. Really upstaged my STL sho-which I will never attend again (overexaggerating) because they have no concepts. MAin mission is to sell cars (largest amount of any auto show in the US.) ANy way, saw the new VEraCruz. Dissapointed that i couln't get in it, But production starts in two weeks, so they won't hit dealers untill early April. My impression: It looks a little station wagon like in person, But seeing it I like how it looks a lot more. On pics, it lookks so goofy, but at the show it looked a little upscale. As far as interior space, I don't think so. Interior looks great, but there is NO room behind third row from what I could see. I can't really judge, becasue i wasn't right in it, but I could (and did) reach my hand out and touch the car. THe third row seat is right on the floor, and the swooping roof almost cuts into head room,and definitly into cargo space. THere doesn't seem to be much space behind second row either. But interesting enough, the CRuz is listed as having more room than Taurus X. I can see how the Cruz is bigger than the Pilot, yet has less interior cargo space, and passenger volume. THis is a slight case of CX9 (style definitley cuts into interior-literally). Of ocurse, Cruz wasn't all I saw. The toyota highlander looked like it had an intrior improvement, thouhg row3 didn't look bigger. interior was nice, and nose dind'nt look as big/ clumsy. Taurus X looked very nice. Big improvement. Nice interior. Only thing that gets me is that it has less cargo space than a pilot (only 85 cu ft). THat's not enough for such a big vahicle. Pathfinder is horrible in all rows, and
i should sue BMW for stupidity. MY son couldn't even fit in the third row. Saw Enclave. It looked BEAUTIFUL!lived right up to inti=irior expectations. Then, out of the corner of my eye, i spotted an 07 REndezvous sitting in the corner. I had to rekindle old memorries, so i sat inside. It was a loaded ultra. This car is great, but often overlooked.The third row was truely on par with minivans.ANd at 108 cuft, it has more cargo space then anything but the Acadia. THen you have to consider that at 186 inches in length it is the smallest midsize crossover out there. Almost smaller than Edge! GM could have had a hit on their hands without spending so much money to build lamdas.It just needed better stylin, and fold onto floor second rown and split third row, and updated interior. it could have been great. COulda woulda shoulda...
The rest of the show was great. Only thing it was missing was Comaro. Yesterday was last day, and it left th eday before to go to a charity event in Cali. Why did they do this? don't know, but it made me mad!

arumage

Acadia cargo


Veracruz cargo


Just for reference. The 3rd row is closer to the floor in the Veracruz, which is disappointing, but the 2nd row is much farther off the floor. I guess it's a bit of a trade off.

What Hyundai did is slightly impressive given the size difference.

albook

What Hyundai did is slightly impressive given the size difference.
This is similar to what Honda did. The only problem is that the Pilot is not appealing to the eye in any way. And the interior's CRAP. You guys talk about the Acadia's interior. The Pilot's is worse. There's only one color. And it's SQAURE. Couldn't justify having one because I want an appealing interior.

arumage

I didn't think the Acadia's interior was bad at all. I haven't really looked at the Pilot though. The Acadia I saw had good fit and finish. I had my gripes, but they were not due to the way it was put together. Of course it was a $43k model.

prosource1

I own an 06 Pilot, and although Honda significantly upgraded the interior for 06, it is looking dated and 'cheap' when comparing the Veracruz and Acadia.
I will say that I have owned 2 Pilots in 3 years and the truck never saw a dealer. Had fluid changes, brakes, tires done outside on my 2004 with 100,000. I also traded it for nearly $20,000 when I bought the 06 and purchased the new one for $$28995 loaded (leather, awd, dvd system, XM, heated everything and power roof, etc). So I got a loaded Pilot $6k under msrp. This truck holds its value as good as anything and is as reliable as anything. My only complaint is the cheap plastic dash and the emerging luxury-looking models it will compete with. I will trade in 2 more years but by then the Pilot will be back, I'm sure, and competing aesthetically with these new offerings from Hyundai and GM

arumage

But if the Pilot is competing well, you won't get such a good deal. I guess it's a catch-22.

prosource1

I bought the Pilot at the height of the gas-gouging crisis we all endured this past fall. I was as surprised as anyone that I purchased a Honda $6k below msrp. I wasn't even planning on trading but I need n 8 passenger and had high mileage on my other Pilot and couldn't refuse the deal. I learned from these forums that they were drastically reducing Pilots, as all manufacturers were, so I hit up 5 dealers and one came thru with a deal I couldn't refuse. I will consider a Veracruz and maybe an Acadia when I trade next year.

albook

yeah-Pilot is still a very nice vahicle-it's just I'm not paying 33g for something with that low finish. The interior looks like something that should have come outt of a Hyundai 5 years ago! And the outside was realSUV wannabe. But I won't comment on style. To each his own. I personally think the Acadia is the second best looking CUV on the market- I like the X5 best- and i know that's a contriversial statement. That's just me.

scubaru

Actually the CX-9 AWD Grand Touring w/tow package is over 6,000lb GVWR! Maybe even w/o the tow package. Confirmed at a dealership last week.

mxylplik21

I saw a CX-9 at the dealer last weekend and had decent impressions. However, 2nd row leg room seemed tight (couldn't easily swing my legs out the door from seated position) until I pushed the 2nd row seat all the way back. I kept looking at how to get my third child into the third row. The second row seat slides forward and access is decent and the seat has about three adjustments fore/aft on the track. You can lock a car seat on the chair, leave the seat back in an upright position and leave the whole seat in a forward position (not locked on a track) to increase accessibility to the third row. I can see that to be an advantage with the sliding system. In other words, you can keep a car seat on that seat and still slide it forward to get access to the third row. The room available to get into the third row is tight but a small/nimble kid can get back there and would have to then buckle themselves.

aviboy97

Actually the CX-9 AWD Grand Touring w/tow package is over 6,000lb GVWR

It is, however, the curb weight is 4,546 lbs.

stevedebi

One of the things I like best about the Freestyle is the fact that you don't climb in or drop into the seats. You simply sit down and rotate into position. One would think it is good for Granny, but in fact it is very nice for anyone.

I have not sat in the other vehicles; do you have to "climb" or "drop", or are they like the Freestyle? If you haven't sat in a FS, you may not realize what I mean.

arumage

The CX-9 requires you to watch your head a bit. The Acadia was easy to get in and out of. The Veracruz looks like it would be easy, but I guess I'll have to wait and see.

stevedebi

"The CX-9 requires you to watch your head a bit. The Acadia was easy to get in and out of. The Veracruz looks like it would be easy, but I guess I'll have to wait and see."

I'm not asking ease of entry, I'm asking if you have to go "climb up" or "drop down" to enter the vehicle. Just my curiosity factor, I suppose.

arumage

It didn't seem like you had to climb up or drop down in either the CX-9 or the Acadia. The Veracruz and CX-9 have the most ground clearance (8" and 8.1" respectively), but they are about 1.5" or so higher than the Freestyle. The Acadia's ground clearance is 7.4". I'm 6'3" so it may feel different to someone much shorter.

practical

Just visited a dealer briefly. Hoped in a CX-9 GT.

Space
stuning, while sitting in 3rd row and 2nd row all the way back, there was still some room between my knee and 2nd seatback. And, if you can figure out adding a home-made seatbelt, 3 people at 3rd easily.
I checked current MDX, 3rd row is for toddlers only.

Driver seat
very supportive. My Odyssey's is too soft.

Some plus to me over Veracruz,
- HID
- Nav w/ camera
- spacious

Shortfall
- no approach lights under side mirror
- warranty!!!

Now, does anyone know if this a re-badged Ford?!!

practical

CX-9 has 20" wider tires.

I'm concerning if they have to be replaced every other year.