On Star goes beyond that. Its linked to your vehicle it can tell you when something is wrong with it then it will email you and tell you and when you get into a car accident it will car for help. Not to mention you can share you minutes with your cell phone and On Star and On Star acts like hands free calling and since the car has a more powerful antenna than your cell you get better reception. Also it can do other things but they are not as important as the features I mentioned. I think GM should offer this feature on all its vehicles for free. If I ever get a GM vehicle I would make sure along with a nav system I get On Star also. It's too bad many people like you underestimate On Star it is a great feature and you can only find similar services on luxury cars like BMW and Mercades.
Probably the 3 best reasons for me for OnStar: 1.)automatic crash response to local authorities-safety 2.)instant unlocking of doors if you locked the keys in. 3.)the new turn by turn nav. (better than the expensive screen systems)
Yea I also forgot the door unlock feature. The turn by turn nav I don't like I want one with a screen where I can tell where I am going. I like to be able to see the map. I also like how on some they integrate the audio and climate controls into it.
Buick might have to tread carefully here: high-end CUV's are currently/will be offering very good technology packages, including handsfree voice-activated bluetooth for your cellphone, and they don't charge a $17/month fee like OnStar does. For driving directions, the service costs $35/month, which is not worth it in my opinion, since the new NAV's coming out are rather good, with large, high quality screens.
I do agree that OnStar can give you peace of mind. I just wouldn't pay for it, so for me it is not a selling point at all.
I've been researching the Enclave ever since I saw the first pictures: very, very nice CUV. 3rd row seating and storage capacity are important to me, and the only other vehicles that seem to match these requirements are the upcoming Acura MDX and the Mazda CX-9. The Mazda might be larger, which might fit your needs better. The Toyota Highlander is rumored to be redesigned, and possibly larger, but no info on that yet.
You might want to check out gminsidenews.com if you want more discussion/pictures of Acadia or Enclave.
I agree with you on the GPS navigation system with the screen being better than On Star's nav system 100%. I think that still On Star is great for the rest of the features it offers. You sign up with them and they can tie your cell minutes with it and its hands free and has better reception. Not to mention the door unlock, auto crash notification, and email reminders about the health of the car. I think if you can afford up to and past $40k for a car you can afford $17 a month.
You know the CX-9 is a mini van right? I think you mean the CX-7 and if that is the case its nice but its smaller and requires premium fuel. The Toyota Highlander is kinda small and I wouldn't buy one. I like the Acura MDX and the Honda Pilot but they lack the interior space I want. Thanks for the link I will check that out.
From the pictures I've seen on the Mazda website (and here on Edmunds), the CX-9 is just a bigger version of the CX-7. It is definitely a CUV, if you consider the CX-7 a CUV. The new-ish Mazda5 is a minivan...maybe you are getting it confused with the upcoming CX-9?
The CX-9 will likely not be turbo-driven like the CX-7, so it might not require premium. If it sits 7 adults, it'll be in serious contention along with the Enclave--I'll just have to see at that point if I want more of a luxury CUV, i.e. Enclave, or a more affordable CUV, i.e. CX-9.
I remember hearing somewhere that the CX-9 is suppose to be a replacement for the MPV if I remember right is a mini van. I bet the Enclave is better since it is more luxury orientated. The CX-9 is probably better for people that don't want to spend as much money.
Steve: I consider myself a "tree hugger" but I don't want to prohibit you or anyone else from buying or driving SUVs. Please don't put us all in the same boat. Hey, you yourself said you enjoy the environment, so you are a tree-hugger, too!! :-)
Not all folks who care about preserving the good quality of our natural environment are going to pour blood on your mink coat or key your SUV.
The Mazda's wheelbase is 6 in shorter, and the length, width, and height are all 3 in shorter than the Enclave. Cargo volume info seems to be lacking, but Mazda does say that you get about 17 cubic feet of room behind the 3rd row seats (when they are up), so the Enclave should be about the same.
So the Mazda comes very close in dimensions, but most likely won't have the luxury of the Enclave. And the Enclave looks better, imo!
The enclave is going to be very close to what you see with the concept. some of the outlandish features wont make it but the overall look will be the same. I see no reason why Buick would cut corners on the Enclave, it is the first Buick that will be completely designed with the brands future philosophy in mind. I dont see why this wouldnt be competitive with the MDX or Q7 V6 or other luxury crossovers. I would expect all the safety features on the Acadia to be found on the Enclave so I dont know what more safety would be expected for this type of vehicle.
Bottom line is no other crossovers on the market will offer the space of the Lamda trio. If you want a usable third row and usable storage with the third row up you better forget about the MDX, Pilot, CX-9 etc. Most import crossovers dont even have a third row and they still dont have much room behind the backseats. These things will be much more practical than the FX or Murano.
Considering Audi's quality reputation I think I would go for the Buick and save money to boot.
Actually, based on the new Lambda dimensions (Outlook and Acadia), the Mazda CX-9 is only 0.9" shorter, so it should offer a similarly roomy third row.
Agree with you on the space on the MDX and Pilot, though, they are much shorter vehicles (about 188" long).
I took a look at the pictures of the CX-9 and cannot believe it is that big. It just looks like there is no room for a backseat and storage behind it. Perhaps it is as long but it looks like there is not much room behind the 2nd row seats. We really need some interior dimensions of the Mazda and Enclave.
All I have seen are the pictures on Mazda's website. They show all three rows in one of the pictures, which do look spacey, but don't show what room is left behind the 3rd seat. The text on the website says there is about 17 cubic feet of room behind the 3rd row, which isn't huge, i.e. maybe only 1 foot deep, if you stack things up 3 feet high?
This encourages me that the Enclave should have even more room, and that the third row should hopefully be even more comfortable. Too bad no one is posting interior dimensions yet...
If you study the Mazda photos on their website it looks like the 2nd row seat is up close to the 1rst row. Is this seat adjustable? With this positioning the 3rd row actually looks like it has more legroom than the 2nd row. Creative photography?
Also if you look at the rear D pillar (furthest one back) it is even or forward of the rear seat. Looks like an adult in the back seat would hit their head on the rear tail glass? Very tight.
In looking at the Buick site you cannot get a sense of dimensions. But at this site you can see there is a lot of space behind the seats. The D pillar is well behind the seat. Need this shot of the Mazda.
If you want to know how much space will be in the CX-9, just look at the current Ford Freestyle. It is almost identical in exterior dimensions and has 21 cubic ft behind the 3rd row. The Enclave & Outlook that are coming are a few inches wider than the Freestyle, and a couple of inches taller, so they'll be more spacious than the Freestyle, but not by much I'll bet. Mostly in shoulder & hip room. The Freestyle has been out for two years now, so the CX-9 and Outlook type vehicles aren't anything new.
Looks like some decent cargo room when the 3rd seat is in use. The Freestyle is too boxy for me, though, as is the Outlook. The CX-9 and the Enclave are more of what I'm looking for, more streamlined, more wagon-like in some ways.
If you want to know how much room the enclave will have just look at the specs for the Acadia, the vehicles will be the same size.
I dont understand all the worrying about how much room the CX-9 offers because to me it's nowhere near as attractive as the GM SUVs. It looks like a bigger CX-7 and I dont like it, especially the front. GM was going fo an upscale look while Mazda was going for the "7 seater that appeals to the MAzda3 owner" set. I also like the interior of the Acadia better than the black plastic interior of the CX-9.
It's about the same length as my Freestyle, but 4" taller and 4" wider and seems more true SUV-like, where my lower Freestyle is more a true crossover. The Outlook seems just like a next generation SUV based on the size. Although it has more shoulder and hip room than my Freestyle because it's wider, the head and leg room are the same, except for the 2nd row where the Freestyle has a few inches more legroom.
Vehicle Dimensions Curb Weight (lb) 4722 4936 Front Track (in) 67.1 Rear Track (in) 67.1 Height (in) 72.8 Length (in) 200.7 Wheelbase (in) 118.9 Width (in) 78.2 Ground Clearance (in) 7.4 Interior Specs Head Rm F (in) 40.4 Head Rm 2nd (in) 39.3 Head Rm 3rd (in) 38.4 Shlder Rm F (in) 61.9 Shlder Rm 2nd (in) 61.1 Shlder Rm 3rd (in) 57.8 Hip Room F (in) 57.8 Hip Room 2nd (in) 57.9 Hip Room 3rd (in) 48.3 Leg Room F (in) 41.3 Leg Room 2nd (in) 36.9 Leg Room 3rd (in) 33.2 Seating Positions F 2 Seating Positions 2nd 3 Seating Positions 3rd 2 Cargo Volume (cu ft) 19.7 Cargo Volume + 1 (cu ft) 68.9 Cargo Volume + 2 (cu ft) 117
No, I was referring to the comments that said the Enclave dimensions were the same as the Outlook and then that the Outlook dimensions were the same as the Enclave and back and forth.
The dimensions are great but do not answer all my questions.
If you campare the Freestyle to the Outlook you see that with the 3rd row stored the Outlook has 37% larger volume (68.9 vs. 47.3) and with 2nd and 3rd down 46% larger volume(117 vs. 85.2). Behind the 3rd row the Outlook has 25% more room.
Now the Freestyle is only 5% skinnier on the outside than the Outlook. The Outlook is a proportional 4% wider on the inside in the 2nd row.
The Outlook is 4.6" taller but it also has 2.3" more ground clearance. (a delta of 2.3")
What does this all mean? The Outlook is much more efficient in its interior usage. It will have more comfortable higher seating because the headrooms are about identical. There must be a very large dimension from th efloor to the ceiling. Just a bigger, more comfortable vehicle inside.
Just found some more info on Autoweek: with the 3rd row seat up, the Outlook will have 19.7 cu ft of cargo room, which is 2 more cu. feet than the Tahoe. So this could point in more efficient use of interior space.
I compared pictures of the Outlook, Acadia, and Enclave. I have to say that I'd pick the Enclave first, then the Acadia, and last the Outlook, in terms of exterior looks. It seems that the Outlook is going for an Acura MDX look in the front, and I'm not too crazy about that look. Overall the Enclave has smoother curves, more like the Lexus or the Touareg, and if that's its competitors, I fear the price!
I wonder if the Acadia will be cheaper than the Saturn, since Saturn might do this no-haggle policy nonsense and keep the price up.
Actually, the Freestyle has 21 cubic feet behind the 3rd row according to most reviews and the Ford webpage. And I'd rather have the added inches in legroom instead of just overall cubic feet. If you're sitting in the Freestyle with 3-4" more legroom, you'll be more comfortable than in the Outlook, even if the Outlook has more cubic feet above your head (and the headroom in the Freestyle is the same as the Outlook, so I don't know where the Outlook's extra cubic feet are, but not where the passenger's sit, except for the shoulder/hip room because of the extra width). Plus I'd rather not climb up a few more inches to get into the Outlook.
Leg room is not everything and can be misleading. Most likely the seats in the Enclave are more comfortably higher. Tha was the whole point of my discussion. Per the dimensions the Enclave does not have more headroom, therefore the seat cushions are probably higher.
I see the Acadia and Outlook do not share any exterior sheetmetal other than the roof and greenhouse. Wish they would have made them a bunch more different from each other. Perhaps in person? Enclave looks real different and the best IMO.
Interiors IP's are completely diferent and I love the Enclave.
I think the Edge might be closer to the CX-7, in terms of dimensions, i.e. the CX-9 is about a foot longer. As far as I know, it doesn't have 3rd row seating yet, although it could be a future option. I guess that means the Edge will be placed between the Escape and the Explorer in terms of size.
The Edge isn't a bad looking CUV...a little chunky, but not bad. Still prefer the Acadia/Enclave, though.
The edge and the CX-9 are on the same platform, but the CX-9 can seat 7. The CX-7 is based on a platform made up of 3 and 5 components which is why it is powered by the turbo four motor instead of the 3.5 Duratec V6.
I am not a fan of the edge's exterior styling at all, the GM CUVs look better inside and out to me. Of course the Edge will probably be lighter and faster because it's a smaller vehicle. I see the Edge as direct competition for the Murano and Highlander.
The interior of the Acadia is sharp. Does anyone know if the Acadia will offer the two second row bucket seats, like the Enclave, or just the bench seating?
" Acadia can be configured for seven or eight passengers, including two front bucket seats, a 60/40-split second-row bench (three passengers) or two second-row captain's chairs (two passengers) and a 60/40-split third-row bench seat. Leather seats also are available."
Pictures available that show the second row buckets
The fake wood (i.e. plastic) used in the Saturn looks bad in these pictures. In fact, cheap fake wood always looks bad, so why even bother? The fake wood in the Enclave (I assume it will be fake wood) looks a little richer, but it's hard to tell if it will be tacky or not. And that wood on the steering wheel a la Lexus isn't attractive to me. The Acadia does look the best by far--no wood. Everything seems to merge well together, too. Way to go, GMC!
I like the no-wood interior, but I dont think the Outlook looks bad at all. Most vehicles have fake wood, but some do it better than others. I think the Outlook's wood is pretty tasteful.
Oooh...they have a nice interior shot this time. The leather doesn't look perforated to me, unlike the concept vehicle. Not too crazy about the way the radio seems to bulge out. The Acadia's radio seems to fit seemlessly into the dash, while the Enclave's really sticks out.
Will have to see high res pictures to really get a feel for it.
After looking at the interior photes I am definately torn. I definately like the Arcadia interior best, but I prefer the look of the Outlook's air vents. I think the simple rectangular vents are more classy (understated) kind of like Audi/VW (but then I own an audi so I may be biased here).
I did love the Enclave when I first saw it, but now I think the Arcadia has it beat. One interest comment I had is that though I could not tell that there were any obvious differences between the Enclave concept and the spy shot, I prefer the interior on the spy shot. I do not know why. Perhaps because it looks more "real"??
For the exterior the ranking for that is easy: 1st) Enclave, 2nd) Arcadia and 3rd) Outlook. I do like the nose on the Arcadia but the back lacks interest and is too similar to the Outlook to make it better that the Enclave.
One final note. I wish these vehicles had been out when we were shopping for a crossover and bought the Freestyle in 2005. The Freestyle is not a bad car, in fact I quite like it, but these look a lot better!
The concept car was a very cleaned up and improved prototype Enclave. A bunch of stuff was added to "improve" the wow factor like multiple screens. The spy photos just prove that GM is really starting to build some of the concept cars they show.
Comments
Probably the 3 best reasons for me for OnStar:
1.)automatic crash response to local authorities-safety
2.)instant unlocking of doors if you locked the keys in.
3.)the new turn by turn nav. (better than the expensive screen systems)
I do agree that OnStar can give you peace of mind. I just wouldn't pay for it, so for me it is not a selling point at all.
You might want to check out gminsidenews.com if you want more discussion/pictures of Acadia or Enclave.
The CX-9 will likely not be turbo-driven like the CX-7, so it might not require premium. If it sits 7 adults, it'll be in serious contention along with the Enclave--I'll just have to see at that point if I want more of a luxury CUV, i.e. Enclave, or a more affordable CUV, i.e. CX-9.
Not all folks who care about preserving the good quality of our natural environment are going to pour blood on your mink coat or key your SUV.
cheers!!
So the Mazda comes very close in dimensions, but most likely won't have the luxury of the Enclave. And the Enclave looks better, imo!
Click here to see CX-9 specs.
Bottom line is no other crossovers on the market will offer the space of the Lamda trio. If you want a usable third row and usable storage with the third row up you better forget about the MDX, Pilot, CX-9 etc. Most import crossovers dont even have a third row and they still dont have much room behind the backseats. These things will be much more practical than the FX or Murano.
Considering Audi's quality reputation I think I would go for the Buick and save money to boot.
Agree with you on the space on the MDX and Pilot, though, they are much shorter vehicles (about 188" long).
This encourages me that the Enclave should have even more room, and that the third row should hopefully be even more comfortable. Too bad no one is posting interior dimensions yet...
Also if you look at the rear D pillar (furthest one back) it is even or forward of the rear seat. Looks like an adult in the back seat would hit their head on the rear tail glass? Very tight.
http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=upcomingCX9
In looking at the Buick site you cannot get a sense of dimensions. But at this site you can see there is a lot of space behind the seats. The D pillar is well behind the seat. Need this shot of the Mazda.
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/12/new-york-auto-show-2007-saturn-outlook-rollou- t/
I dont understand all the worrying about how much room the CX-9 offers because to me it's nowhere near as attractive as the GM SUVs. It looks like a bigger CX-7 and I dont like it, especially the front. GM was going fo an upscale look while Mazda was going for the "7 seater that appeals to the MAzda3 owner" set. I also like the interior of the Acadia better than the black plastic interior of the CX-9.
Does anyone know where interior specs are for Outlook/Acadia/Enclave?
http://www.velocityjournal.com/journal/2007/saturn/11674sp.html
It's about the same length as my Freestyle, but 4" taller and 4" wider and seems more true SUV-like, where my lower Freestyle is more a true crossover. The Outlook seems just like a next generation SUV based on the size. Although it has more shoulder and hip room than my Freestyle because it's wider, the head and leg room are the same, except for the 2nd row where the Freestyle has a few inches more legroom.
Vehicle Dimensions
Curb Weight (lb) 4722 4936
Front Track (in) 67.1
Rear Track (in) 67.1
Height (in) 72.8
Length (in) 200.7
Wheelbase (in) 118.9
Width (in) 78.2
Ground Clearance (in) 7.4
Interior Specs
Head Rm F (in) 40.4
Head Rm 2nd (in) 39.3
Head Rm 3rd (in) 38.4
Shlder Rm F (in) 61.9
Shlder Rm 2nd (in) 61.1
Shlder Rm 3rd (in) 57.8
Hip Room F (in) 57.8
Hip Room 2nd (in) 57.9
Hip Room 3rd (in) 48.3
Leg Room F (in) 41.3
Leg Room 2nd (in) 36.9
Leg Room 3rd (in) 33.2
Seating Positions F 2
Seating Positions 2nd 3
Seating Positions 3rd 2
Cargo Volume (cu ft) 19.7
Cargo Volume + 1 (cu ft) 68.9
Cargo Volume + 2 (cu ft) 117
But it looks like we now have dimensions!!!
If you campare the Freestyle to the Outlook you see that with the 3rd row stored the Outlook has 37% larger volume (68.9 vs. 47.3) and with 2nd and 3rd down 46% larger volume(117 vs. 85.2). Behind the 3rd row the Outlook has 25% more room.
Now the Freestyle is only 5% skinnier on the outside than the Outlook. The Outlook is a proportional 4% wider on the inside in the 2nd row.
The Outlook is 4.6" taller but it also has 2.3" more ground clearance. (a delta of 2.3")
What does this all mean? The Outlook is much more efficient in its interior usage. It will have more comfortable higher seating because the headrooms are about identical. There must be a very large dimension from th efloor to the ceiling. Just a bigger, more comfortable vehicle inside.
I compared pictures of the Outlook, Acadia, and Enclave. I have to say that I'd pick the Enclave first, then the Acadia, and last the Outlook, in terms of exterior looks. It seems that the Outlook is going for an Acura MDX look in the front, and I'm not too crazy about that look. Overall the Enclave has smoother curves, more like the Lexus or the Touareg, and if that's its competitors, I fear the price!
I wonder if the Acadia will be cheaper than the Saturn, since Saturn might do this no-haggle policy nonsense and keep the price up.
I see the Acadia and Outlook do not share any exterior sheetmetal other than the roof and greenhouse. Wish they would have made them a bunch more different from each other. Perhaps in person? Enclave looks real different and the best IMO.
Interiors IP's are completely diferent and I love the Enclave.
I thought the Mazda CX-9 is simular to the other new FMC crossovers coming out this fall, the Ford Edge and the Lincoln MKX ??
The Edge isn't a bad looking CUV...a little chunky, but not bad. Still prefer the Acadia/Enclave, though.
I am not a fan of the edge's exterior styling at all, the GM CUVs look better inside and out to me. Of course the Edge will probably be lighter and faster because it's a smaller vehicle. I see the Edge as direct competition for the Murano and Highlander.
Pictures available that show the second row buckets
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/07/12/2007-gmc-acadia-revealed/
http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10434
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/07/19/spy-shots-2008-buick-enclave/
Will have to see high res pictures to really get a feel for it.
I did love the Enclave when I first saw it, but now I think the Arcadia has it beat. One interest comment I had is that though I could not tell that there were any obvious differences between the Enclave concept and the spy shot, I prefer the interior on the spy shot. I do not know why. Perhaps because it looks more "real"??
For the exterior the ranking for that is easy: 1st) Enclave, 2nd) Arcadia and 3rd) Outlook. I do like the nose on the Arcadia but the back lacks interest and is too similar to the Outlook to make it better that the Enclave.
One final note. I wish these vehicles had been out when we were shopping for a crossover and bought the Freestyle in 2005. The Freestyle is not a bad car, in fact I quite like it, but these look a lot better!
http://www.buick.com/news/
Click the link to the updated Enclave page