Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Crossover SUV Comparison

18788909293237

Comments

  • volkovvolkov Posts: 1,306
    I realize it had a hatchback, but a CUV? Obviously it MUST have been a CUV, or why would it be discussed on this forum? :blush:

    Well as you alluded to, it actually had a bigger engine than most of the vehicles we're discussing.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    Isn't that something?? Bigger engine, but agricultural in nature and very low hp by comparison with today (though the torque was good).

    I had an older girlfriend at the time whose father bought her a new 73 purple Gremlin X. It had high back buckets and a manual transmission between them. At the time, I thought it was a pretty fun ride. I still have a photo of me with my boot up on the rear bumper, my hair down my back and a mature marijuana plant in my hand. Ah, those days of being very young, pretty and stupid. TMI? :blush:
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    Are you arguing that people decide on their purchases based on not caring for their flaws (small 3rd row, little space, excess weight) ?

    Do you hear what you are saying? I bet if you were single without kids you would buy some little sports coupe with a little backseat. And there is nothing wrong with that. One man's idea of a flaw mean nothing to another man.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Come on, you yourself called out for people who had only gotten 20 MPH

    Absolutely, and I explained why right then and there.

    FS fans go and ask only for the good data, 30mpg plus. So first I asked why, and pointed out that this would slant the mileage figures.

    I then asked for those under 20, so we'd get a complete report of both the good and the bad. That's what should have been asked for in the first place.

    That's how you get the whole picture. Looks like you might see anywhere from 13mpg all the way up to 33mpg in a Freestyle. I think that's useful to know. :shades:
  • barnstormer64barnstormer64 Posts: 1,106
    I am close to someone who has a Montego, and it is very nice. There beauty is more than skin deep, but that's the problem. There is no beauty in their skin

    Some of us find CLASS more beautiful than FLASH. :P
  • nastacionastacio Posts: 370
    I bet if you were single without kids you would buy some little sports coupe with a little backseat

    Before I win that bet (more on that later,) I pointed out that you listed rejection factors as the deciding motive for a purchase.

    People don't buy an Enclave because its chrome grille can be seen from the moon with a naked eye or because they crack the pavement underneath them; they ignore these aspects because of other things they like.

    So, if someone comes over and asks "Jim, nice Taurus X, how do you like it?", the answer is never going to be "I bought it because I don't care that it looks like the box it came in" but probably something like "It fits all of our stuff, it is safe and it gets good mileage".

    Since your examples were not acutely negative, I gave you the benefit of doubt asking whether you were arguing that way.

    Now for the bet you lost; when I was fresh out of college and still single without kids, I started a small company and didn't have money for my own car before I got married two years later.

    After a couple of years, things turned out much better and, still without kids, I bought a brand new...Mercury Sable. For the same money I could buy an Acura Integra, but I went for the comfort. I was 25 and still remember driving to the Mercury/Lincoln dealership for oil changes and talking to elderly Lincoln owners older than my parents.
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    Some of us find CLASS more beautiful than FLASH.

    You don't have to give up one for the other. The likes of the 300 is classy. And define class. If we're talking about pros and cons, the only thing the 300 loses to a Montego is headroom and trunkspace. And having something in your driveway that's nice to look at is a plus, too.
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    About the sports car thing, i meant in your low forties, single living in some big city- you know the stereotype. Not everyone's needs are fit by one vehicle. And of course they don't by a vehicle because they can overlook the cons (although you may hear minivan owners on this forum saying they don't care about the stigma). They buy it because the pros outweigh the cons (like because even though you can't get two adults in the back of you're 6 series, it doesn't matter. It's only you, and maybe that girl you met at the bar last night. You are just concerned about looking good. Sorry- maybe not the best example :P )
  • barnstormer64barnstormer64 Posts: 1,106
    The likes of the 300 is classy. And define class

    To me, the 300 isn't classy, it's flashy.
  • nastacionastacio Posts: 370
    even though you can't get two adults in the back of you're 6 series

    Ah, a 6 series, that's a different story. You said little sports coupe. I have not given up on a 6-series in this lifetime, but I will probably have to see my three kids through college first.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    I think the 300 is classy in an almost Bentley kind of way. The 500 to me is more like the Impala or most versions of the Avalon...innocuous with a fair number of attributes, but neither flashy nor classy. The 500 will never look like a "classic" car, any more than let's say the 1980's version of the Camry does. It is inoffensive and so will always be.

    Ford has made some classy and understated designs over the years, some examples being the original T-bird, Lincoln Mark I, II, III, VII; the 61-69 Continental, 66-67 Mercury Comet, 67-68 Cougar, 69-70 LTD. Ford occasionally does bold well too, e.g. original Taurus, 83-86 T-bird, 89 Probe, teh last Cougar coupe, 97 F150.

    The 500/Montego is not classy or flashy or remarkable in any way styling-wise, except for being a boring derivative of an Audi A6. Wow, did I get off the subject of CUVs!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    What thread am I in right now? ;)
  • chuckhoychuckhoy Posts: 420
    Of course the spouse veto will make all of this discussion moot

    That is what happened to me. When she said that she wanted seating for at least 7, I thought a minivan was the way to go. More bang (interior space and options) for the buck. But, she really wanted an Outlook. Loved the way it looks. Loves everything about it, so that is what we got.

    In one hand I had a couple thousand dollars, in the other was a happy wife. Pretty easy choice. If the wife ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.

    I also got an agreement that the next vehicle purchase decision will be mine to make. Mine alone. Then we will have an odd garage. An Outlook next to a compact. Something like a Mini.
  • nastacionastacio Posts: 370
    Glad we are back to crossover and tall-wagon discussions.

    Started doing some research on CX-9 safety ratings.

    No IIHS data for it yet.

    NHSA gave it 5 stars on frontal crash test, but has not performed side crash or rollover tests yet.

    At 4500 lbs, not a horse jockey either, but the new 3.7 liter will make it move fast. C&D already clocked the 2007 3.5 version at 7.8 seconds from 0-60, which will make it one of the fastest, if not the fastest, CUV in the segment.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    If the wife ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.

    How true...I've heard it said like this:

    Happy wife, happy life.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,992
    I also got an agreement that the next vehicle purchase decision will be mine to make. Mine alone. Then we will have an odd garage. An Outlook next to a compact. Something like a Mini.
    In my garage there's a Fit beside my FS.

    BTW...you can go to any MPG forum on Edmunds and read about really great and really poor mpg, so this sort of thing is hard to qualify. I think a lot has to do with the driver and the type of driving.

    With my FS MPG, I consistently get in the low 20s in mixed driving and upper 20's on the highway. My FS has about 54K miles on it. With my Fit, I'll get in the low 30s in mixed and high 30s on the highway, and the Fit has about 13K miles. Based on the MPG forum on Edmunds, I'm at the upper end of the MPG spectrum. Not the best, but then on the highway I'm not driving 60mph! When my wife drives, she races around a little more in both cars and the MPG suffers by about 10% because of it.

    Anyway, with respect to safety and MPG, I don't think any of the CUVs being discussed here are that much better or worse to make it much of a discussion topic...more just spinning-of-wheels :P

    And the reasons a person gives for buying a car are sometimes a lot different then the real reason. Someone buying a Lexus SUV might say that they bought it for safety, reliability and that it holds all of their stuff, but the real reason will either be that they're wanting to impress someone, or that all of their friends have cars in a similar "class," so they don't want to be seen driving a Toyota Highlander.
  • nastacionastacio Posts: 370
    Well, not externally speaking, but the price and features seem interesting. It has a bit more ground clearance than the Odyssey and will deserve a test-drive in the next couple of weeks.

    It seems Chrysler skimped on the mechanics (push-rod engines or a 16/23 mpg 4.0 liter engine,) which will only be solved after 2010. But at least 6 gears are available.
  • svofan2svofan2 Posts: 442
    ..could someone PLEASE>>>>> what is a lambda??????????????
  • wlbrown9wlbrown9 Posts: 867
    Well, my 90 year old mother still is able to climb into my Trooper, with a little care and use of the handles. She is probably more comfortable getting in and out of her Buick Century. We usually get her in the front seat but second row would not be that bad either. I would NOT expect her to get in the 3rd row of our Envoy XL or of one of the lambdas either...Envoy has a little advantage in that it is hot quite as high and does have side steps.

    I (mid-50s) still get around pretty good most of the time, esp. if I keep up the exercise, etc. But I would rather sit a little more upright, glad I don't have the '74 Datsun Z any more...long way up from sitting almost on the pavement :-).
  • chuckhoychuckhoy Posts: 420
    Lambda refers to the body that the Buick Enclave, GMC Acadia and Saturn Outlook share. They are mechanically identical and just have differing sheetmetal exteriors and some interior fetures. But, they are pretty much, the same.
  • chuckhoychuckhoy Posts: 420
    My 87 year old grandmother-in-law had no trouble getting into or out of my Outlook. Then again, she is MUCH healthier than a typical 87 year old. I think that it depends on the health/mobility of the person involved.
  • wlbrown9wlbrown9 Posts: 867
    "I'm in my mid-fifties too. The day I have to struggle to get back out of regular sedan height is the day I start applying myself a bit more at the gym."

    I work out regularly but do have longer than normal legs. I was probably thinking more of the several rental cars I had over the past 5-10 years...more in the less expensive class of vehicles used for a one day rental while in the shop, no need to spend an extra $20 for a big vehicle to make one round trip to work. Some of them have been more like sitting with your butt in a hole, uncomfortable for even a fit person. I had a '74 Datsun 260Z way back then...I liked it then but would not want it as a daily drive now due to driving position. I've gotten used to the more upright position and really like being able to see traffic better.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    They do look good. The 2nd row window now slides down, finally, and a 6 speed auto on the two big V6s don't hurt. Also, you can swivel the seats outward to make it easier to buckle in a small child, which is nifty.

    The table and seats that face each other remind me of VW Vanagons, so perhaps we should not be surprised that VW will use this platform for their own new vans.

    Keep in mind the mileage figures are under the new 2008 EPA revised standards. 16/23 matches what Honda gets without VCM.

    The MPG champs among minivans for 2008 are still all Toyotas and Hondas with VCM (both 17/24). Chrysler's 3.3l V6 matches those numbers but the press is calling it underpowered, and it only gets a 4 speed auto.

    Similarly, you'll see all the Crossovers drop about 10% in their 2008 EPA numbers when those come out. Expect about a 2mpg drop in the EPA numbers.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,992
    Anyone with a link to the specs of the new Chrysler minivans interior and exterior? Seems like the Chrysler page I get only has the short version.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
  • nastacionastacio Posts: 370
    That is the real deal, the short version is discontinued according to C&D.

    They do look shorter, maybe because of the oversized sliding doors.

    Some of the external numbers are class toppers:

    Overall length: 202.5
    Wheelbase: 121.2

    201/118.1 for the Odyssey.

    But the disappointment is really inside, even with the extra inches on the outside, it gave out 2-3 inches of legroom on 2nd/3rd rows and another 6 cu.ft. behind 3d row.

    I guess we can blame the big nose. I don't know, somehow that longer hood was meant to create a better styling, but it reminds me of the deceased GM minivans every time I look at it.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    It is boxier, I actually liked the styling of the current vans better. Heck, I'd even go back one generation and say that styling really peaked back then.

    That's a nice, long wheelbase. I bet the ride is pretty smooth. Hope the turning circle is reasonable, though.
  • nastacionastacio Posts: 370
    38 vs 36.9 for the Odyssey.

    There is something to be said about taking two years longer to fall short from all competitor's dimensions.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I wouldn't be so quick to judge.

    I'm sure they had to make some compromises to get the 2nd row seats to swivel, maybe the 3rd row had to be farther back to make room for all those legs?

    I don't think an inch here or there will matter much, all minivans pretty much have enough space in all 3 rows. If cargo space is tight they'll just toss one of those Sears X-Cargo things on top and/or a bike rack.
Sign In or Register to comment.