Currently, the 2nd/3rd row legroom of the Pilot is 37.4/30.2 inches as compared to the Acadia's 36.9/33.2, so the Pilot's 3rd row is 3" less, but the 2nd row is .5" greater. Since you can slide the 2nd row, that means the overall difference is 2.5" of legroom between the 2nd and 3rd rows. But again, the Pilot is almost 13" shorter than the Acadia.
So if the Pilot's legroom is considered "poor," then the Acadia's with an extra 2.5" would be considered "satisfactory," with the Freestyle's legroom considered "good" (since it's combined 2nd/3rd row legroom is 3" more than the Acadia's), and full-sized minivans 2nd/3rd row legroom would be considered "excellent."
Actually, a marvel of interior legroom for a given exterior length is the Kia Rondo. At only 179" in length, here are the legroom specs: 41.3/38.2/31.3 (http://www.carsdirect.com/research/specs?cat=6&make=KI&modelid=686&acode=USB70K- IC091A0&year=2007). Not much cargo space behind the 3rd row, but still for only being 179" long it's pretty amazing getting that sort of legroom.
It has to do with the van-like fully upright seating (aka low load floor). The Scion xB has similar characteristics. The '06 xB manages 45.3/38 and is still only 155" long. Given an extra 2' of length and an even lower load floor, I'm sure Toyota could engineer a 3rd row into it.
Edmunds.com Announces Consumers' Most Wanted Vehicle Awards for 2007 Crossover GMC Acadia Named ''Most Significant Vehicle'' by Consumers
SANTA MONICA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Edmunds.com, the premier online resource for automotive information, today announced the winners of the sixth annual Edmunds.com Consumers' Most Wanted vehicle awards.
"These awards provide a good idea of what consumers are looking for in their next vehicle," said Karl Brauer, Editor in Chief of Edmunds.com. "This year, consumers voiced the opinion that the domestics are developing some very compelling cars and trucks."
By a considerable margin, the 2007 GMC Acadia won the flagship award, Edmunds.com Consumers’ Most Significant Vehicle of 2007. The next highest finisher was the 2007 Saturn Aura, and the 2007 Honda Fit took third place.
Among manufacturers, Chevrolet led the pack, winning five awards, while Cadillac and Honda tied for second place, each winning four awards in this year's survey.
Anyone know if you can swap-out 2nd row benches on Freestyle for 2nd row captain's? I got a good deal on an '07 FS Ltd but now realize would have been happier with the captain's chairs. Can they be obtained from Ford or "traded" with another FS? Looks from my initial exam under the seats that the brackets on teh floor are probably standard for either config.
No surprises here! I purchased a 07 Outlook XR two weeks ago and I LOVE it!!! Test drove CX-9,MDX,waited for the Vera Cruz (knob come off during test drive...). I test drove the Acadia almost two months ago and really liked it but was not crazy about the sheet metal but was still extremely impressed with it. An Outlook pulled along side me at a stop light and decided to check it out... Personally I think the Outlook looks better and is a better value costing about a grand less with the same bells and whistles then Acadia. My Outlook XR is LOADED expect no AWD. 1575 miles including one 600 mile road trip later and I can tell you the lambda platform is near perfect. traded in a 04 Toyota Sienna and believe me there is no loss in seating space for my family. There is some loss of cargo space when comparing to a minivan. But when comparing to the other CUV's mentioned above there really is no comparision.The GM lambda's is the CUV to have! BTW, I'm asked in disbelief a least twice a week by total strangers "this is a Saturn"? Yeah baby it's a Saturn...
You people are high, I paid $27k for a loaded limited FS in '05 and you people buying the lambda triplets are paying a minimum $8k more than I did for 10-15 more cubic feet on the interior... FS wins the value war EVERY day of the week. Vanity and Lambda's are overpriced...period.
"You people are high, I paid $27k for a loaded limited FS in '05 and you people buying the lambda triplets are paying a minimum $8k more than I did for 10-15 more cubic feet on the interior... FS wins the value war EVERY day of the week. Vanity and Lambda's are overpriced...period."
As a very happy Freestyle owner, I must take some exception to this statement. The FS does not have the engine or horsepower of the GM Lamda platform. I don't really think that people who would like a FS would like a Lamda and vice versa. The design philosophy behind the FS is Volvo; the GM is, well, GM. Two entirely different concepts, even though they are both CUVs.
I would be interested to hear what the actual MPG was on that Outlook. The GMC Acadia forum has only one report, 15 MPG city, 23 MPG highway, 20 overall mixed. This sounds about right for the Lamda. I don't know what speeds or driving style was being used.
The Acadia is 4900 lbs before cargo and passengers; the FS is 4000 (4250 for AWD).
Also, the Lamda has 19.7 cu ft behind the rear seat - but the FS has 22 back there.
Well, since we're name calling, the FS is ugly, underpowered and uncomfortable...
How come some of the FS owners here are so intent on justifying their own purchase and/or bashing everybody else's purchase decisions? I assume the majority of people on this forum are more car savvy than the average consumer. Therefore, they most likely did not blindly purchase whichever vehicle they did, but weighed price, feature content, and style to come to a decision. As long as people are happy with their own decision, what's the problem?
Seems like every other post in this thread is somebody extolling the virtues of the cargo space/seating room/price, etc. of the FS, or knocking the same features on anything else. OK, already, we get it...
BTW, we looked at the FS in '05/'06, and I really liked the value/feature aspect. However, it simply did not work for us on space/comfort.
We purchased an Outlook XR AWD on 3/21, and are very happy with the balance of price, features, and style. If somebody thinks we made the wrong choice, it doesn't really matter, now, does it?
WELL SAID MARK! ~ I think some people get jealous and need to vent, as you said, if you are happy after all things considered, then you made a good deal!
Even though I own an '05 Freestyle (and a Fit by the way) and only paid $23,500 I don't think there's any reason to call others names. And while I've posted interior measurement of a lot of different vehicles, I also don't think there's anything wrong with that.
Right now the Acadia and Outlook will be sold at a premium because they're new, but a year from now there will be all sort of deals on them. The Freestyle isn't selling well, so that's why you can get them pretty cheap, so if that's the car you want, then you should be able to get a real good deal on one. But just because a car sells a lot or sells a little doesn't mean that it's any better or worse then another car. It COULD be better or worse, but not JUST because of the sales figures.
Like I said, I paid $23,500 on the family plan for a Freestyle SE with curtain airbags, tri-level climate, and convenience package and it was a good deal. It doesn't have the overall cargo space of the lambdas, but that's okay for me. And I wasn't interested in any of the luxury features either. Just a practical, spacious people-hauler with outstanding safety features, good MPG and a good price. And that's what I have in yes, a boring-looking package!
Whoa there! Way off in some areas! First of all, you can get a comparably equipped Outlook for 32g, about the same as a loaded FS. Why was the sale price so low on the FS? Because no one wants them. Sales are llllooooowwwwww. A newspaper used the phrase "they are nailed to the showroom floor." And with the Acadia, you get not 10-15, but OVER 35cuft cargo space more. Also, better interior quality than FS any day. So Lambdas definitely win the value war here. The FS falls short...period.
The Acadia is 4900 lbs before cargo and passengers; the FS is 4000 (4250 for AWD). FWD Acadia only 4600lbs, AWD 4900lbs. And pickup is much better in the lambdas. Also, the Lamda has 19.7 cu ft behind the rear seat - but the FS has 22 back there. THe FS is only 20cuft, And that's probably made up iin lambdas by subfloor hide away box. The GMC Acadia forum has only one report, 15 MPG city, 23 MPG highway, 20 overall mixed. I've heard 17-18 and 24 w/ average of 21, but different people=different driving styles.
GM has done good. Congrats on the edmunds title! After reading the June MT issue, I have to congradulate the CX9. I do agree that it can run head to head lux sport CUV's like the SRX and MDX, and murders the Q7. But I'm shocked by how decently the Acadia did. Expected it to get murdered, but kept up. 8.2 0-60 time vs the CX9's 8.1. And 4900 lbs curb weight didn't sound bad compared to the CX9's almost 4700. So Acadia performed pretty well too. It took third, but to two Sport CUV's that sacrifice some comfort for the sport. Bottom line: People are trading in MDX's for these to CUVs.
Say what you want about numbers, but after attemting to squeeze into the Rondo's third row, there is NO WAY this thing has more room in any row than a Honda Pilot. As for the Pilot-if Honda can extend about 5 inches, add a few second and third row legroom inches, and increase cargo space to 100 cuft, then they have the all time winner.Hands down. But it has to look good, too.
In Canada all new built cars must have DRL, is the law and has been for many years. To cut cost Mazda did not put DRL on the CX9 sold in the U.S.A. as it is not law, that I know of so why bother. Also to cut cost Mazda on the CX9 did not use gas struts for the hood. It uses the metal arm that hoohs into a hole in the hood. I would not of thought this would be the case on a expensive vehicle. JMO
"Well, since we're name calling, the FS is ugly, underpowered and uncomfortable... "
To each his own. I find my very well powered (not overpowered) and quite comfortable. However, I don't think it was designed for what some people call "comfort" it is a drivers car, and you can feel the road. This sort of engineering is used by Volvo, Honda, and Mercedes. Other manufacturers prefer a softer ride (except for sports models), such as GM and Toyota.
The Freestyle has only a few problems that kept it from being a hit:
1. It name too closely resembled the (poor) Freestar minivan. 2. It was (deliberately) designed to look like the Ford Explorer. From the rear they are very similar. At the time it was designed (around 2002 - 2003) this was a good thing, but SUV sales were down by the time it was introduced. 3. It was designed for fuel economy rather than towing, so it has a fairly small tow rating and a smaller engine. 4. Ford didn't realize that people would not accept the smaller engine and CVT. 5. Ford didn't know how to promote it correctly. I think it has to do with the fact that (except for towing) it does the same functions as the Explorer while costing less and having more space. I don't think Ford ever figured out how to promote the vehicle without cannibalizing Explorer sales. They could have placed it with the Ford 500 family, for example, and promoted it as a "station wagon". It isn't one, of course, but "CUV" was a new concept for Ford at that time.
In my opinion as an owner, the Freestyle has classic styling, is very well powered, and very comfortable. This is after 18 months of ownership. And I can achieve 30 MPG if I want to drive at 65 MPH, while carrying 7 passengers. I think that stands up to any CUV in this discussion.
But I won't be towing 3500 lbs.
Each vehicle in the CUV class has its benefits and detractions. As I said earlier, the FS isn't for everybody; nor are the Lamdas.
I must say, however, that the Acadia pricing is somewhat shocking. I think the FS maxes out at around 32K; the Acadia maxes out at 45K. That is a huge difference.
Mark, I could not agree with more as well! Something that burns may biscuits in these forums are the trolls that pose as average consumers but are really in the employ in one way or another of a competing car maker. Many are up front about what they do for living and say so but most are not. You can make a simple statement about a vehical and here they come out of the woodwork usually with a well placed zing. As a consumer attempting to do my homework you enter these forums for insight,you don't have to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots based on the comments and number of forums they camp out in. People buy what they buy based on numerous x factors style, brand loyalty,value, perceived status etc.
If someone told me my cat was run over by a Ford I'll never own one... o.k. fine... and I'd consider myself on notice
Btw, I purchased an Outlook XR recently as well and could not be happier in my decision after months of shopping we felt it was the best overall value and meet all the criteria on my families "need/want" list.
To each his own. I find my very well powered (not overpowered) and quite comfortable. However, I don't think it was designed for what some people call "comfort" it is a drivers car, and you can feel the road.
Exactly. Not, it's not a sports car. But neither is it a "land yacht" with no feel of the road. It's pretty much how I like my vehicles to be in terms of road feel.
Ford didn't realize that people would not accept the smaller engine and CVT.
I guess it's hard to underestimate the stupidity of the American public sometimes. :P Funny thing is, now they'll all be happy (maybe) with the new 3.5L engine and typical auto tranny, but they won't actually USE any of that extra power that they got.
Great points, and now with the 3.5L and 6-speed, most won't achieve the mpg numbers attainable with the 3.0L and CVT either. I had a co-worker that went from a loaded '04 Expedition Eddie Bauer to an '05 Freestyle base model purely because of gas cost, but still wanting the 7 seat space, and loved it. Never, ever once complained of power, and even when I asked, she'd always say she loved how zippy and extremely smooth it was.
Despite a real lack of attention anymore, the Freestyle/Taurus X is a terrific vehicle, if you want a great blend of space and "touring" road manners, without the bulk of a lot of other crossovers.
Now, if Ford would have just promoted them more, or at least does in the new Taurus X variety...
I guess it's hard to underestimate the stupidity of the American public sometimes. Funny thing is, now they'll all be happy (maybe) with the new 3.5L engine and typical auto tranny, but they won't actually USE any of that extra power that they got. Here we go again with FS owners griping about people who don't love the FS. It's not the perfect vehicle. There are some good uses for extra power-the FS has little pickup. The power will easily be used.
There are some good uses for extra power-the FS has little pickup. The power will easily be used.
I can't wait to smoke the Taurus X in real driving to prove my point . . just like I routinely smoke Corvettes.
Having power isn't the same as actually USING it. (No, I'm not going to smoke a Corvette owner who actually wants to drag race . . that isn't my point, since so few seem to GET my point.)
I don't think many people buy a Freestyle / Taurus X to drag race.
Is the Freestyle the perfect vehicle? Of course not, there's no such thing. However, it's better than the Taurus X, IMO.
But I hope that my fellow FS owners will tone it down a bit. I too am enthusiastic about my Freestyle, but I am also interested in the other vehicles in this comparison. If we "jump" them every time they compare a vehicle, eventually people will get tired of it and either start catfights or simply stop posting. Neither is good in my opinion.
Some of the hybrid forums are this way; for many months I simply stopped reading them at all, because I found myself seeing that particular hybrid model on the road and thinking that the driver was a -- well, I won't say what I thought. But it affected my driving style in relation to that particular hybrid model, and was pointless.
Personally, if I find someone putting down the Freestyle (or posting erroneous data on the FS), I will respond rationally and reasonably - and without putting down their model. But if they are merely extolling the virtues of their own particular choice (be it Outlook, Acadia, Mazda, or whatever), well, I prefer to listen to their reasoning and enjoy their purchase with them. Just because they like their purchase doesn't mean they are attacking my Freestyle! :shades:
Well said, stevedebi. I actually removed this thread from my tracked discussions for awhile because I found it had deteriorated from useful comparisons to unhelpful attacks on each others' vehicles. I'm back - at least until the attacks start again....
If we "jump" them every time they compare a vehicle
I didn't "jump" anybody. Merely pointed out to a fellow Freestyle owner that Ford was catering to "the masses" (which, by definition, aren't the brightest folks around) when they upped the horsepower/displacement with a new engine and got rid of the CVT.
Thanks. A conversion would probably require bolting the slider rails into the floor, but the rails may be part of the captain's chair frame. I would be surprised if Ford had different bolt locations for mounting the different seats' brackets into the floor. Any hint on where I could find a thread to the internet traffic on swapping 2nd row seating? I can't find any.
I would be surprised if Ford had different bolt locations for mounting the different seats' brackets into the floor.
Judging by other posts I've read here over the years, you could very well be surprised. :sick: My old Voyager would swap out seats with "universal" mounting bracket holes and I took advantage of that once when I borrowed someone's 2nd row seats. But it's not a given, and captain's chairs won't bolt into the trim level of my current Nissan minivan.
You may find some body diagrams in one of the factory manuals online, and you may be able to access one free. See Online Repair Manuals for some links.
Thanks for the help on 2nd row questions. Here's a few more new '07 Freestyle Ltd owner questions:
1) Reading lights in 2nd & 3rd rows are way too bright (IMO) for driving with them on. Has anyone put a lower-wattage bulb in there or know whether there'd be a problem? Parts dept. at dealer was useless on this one, saying there's only one bulb spec'd by Ford for it.
2) There's a plastic clip under the front center console armrest that looks like it's meant to hold something up off the floor of the console. Anyone know what it is?
3) My Ltd did not include Sirius, however there's a little antenna fin on the roof. Does that mean it has the satellite radio such that I might only need to have the sat. receiver added?
However, it's better than the Taurus X, IMO. Far fetched oppiniion, considereing you have nothing to base it on. No numbers have been released proving the FS is better. In fact what little info that has been released proves the TX in superiority. And you must do some dangerous driving to smoke anything but a minivan in the FS. Bu thtat's not the point. The point is, the FS was a good vehicle. It needed an upgrade to stay with the competition. This is no bigger than the transition from the '05 to '06 Explorer. Except with a new name.
I guess it's hard to underestimate the stupidity of the American public sometimes. Funny thing is, now they'll all be happy (maybe) with the new 3.5L engine and typical auto tranny, but they won't actually USE any of that extra power that they got. Again with the downput of other comparisons. Stupid Americans? Stupid for getting what they want and DO use. They will use the extra power. The bottom line is the FS has a lack luster engine. Not totally underpowered, but enough where an improvement will be welcomed.
Maybe "absurd american" instead of stupid. The idea that more is always better is uniquely american, more power, more size, more shiney bits, more expensive gadgets to break because they connote luxury and sophistication. All it is is wasteful. More weight requires more engine requires more gas requires more running expenses requires more service requires more, more, more. It starts to become absurd and ignorant even stupid in a regard.
"The bottom line is the FS has a lack luster engine. Not totally underpowered, but enough where an improvement will be welcomed."
You are so completely incorrect. It's a CUV, not a sport sedan, sport wagon, sports car, race car, etc.. It's meant to carry 7 people safely, reliably, & competantly in comfort and with some economy. It does all of that quite well, perfect no but a great balance of all the necessary attributes. The american buying public is akin to a heard of sheep being lead to the slaughter. People see the new CUV's with more power, more weight, more stuff to break and perhaps most importantly less economy as an improvement, they're not. How can they be an improvement as they pander to the lowest common denominator of the buying public not because they present forward thought on the solution to the archetype of the CUV but because they take the easy way out and just give to the thoughtless and undemanding buying public what they think they "need".
It is one of the better examples of the absurdity and shortsightedness of the american buying public and yes in the end you can even call it stupid with a side order of irresponsible arrogance.
I think we're missing the point, as our social generalizations creep wider and wider...
I don't necessarily disagree with your statements, but the whole NOTION of a CUV is an improvement over a body-on-frame SUV, and by its very nature, a CUV is supposed to be more efficient and less wasteful. If "the herd" start figuring out that they can live with carrying 7 people in any of the CUVs compared here - rather than a Tahoe or Expedition - we should be thankful. It ain't a Prius, but it's a start.
Thankful for what, we aren't going in the right direction with the new crop, period. The new tahoes & expeditions are now getting better mileage and the cuv's are getting less, making the gap less and potentially keeping people in the big SUV's because the CUV's aren't enough of a compelling argument and they find themselves asking the question why am I giving up more space for a measely 1-2mpg.
Maybe the marketer's are the genius' in this big conspiracy theory. Maybe the "improved" cuv's are just the answer to kick the SUV market back into gear as the gap between the 2 will disappear keeping all those high profit tahoe's , explorer's, etc. moving off the lot's and into america's driveways. It's a bait and switch...
"The new tahoes & expeditions are now getting better mileage and the cuv's are getting less, making the gap less and potentially keeping people in the big SUV's because the CUV's aren't enough of a compelling argument and they find themselves asking the question why am I giving up more space for a measely 1-2mpg."
I think the gap for the Explorer vs. Freestyle would be more like 6 MPG in town and 8 MPG on the road. That is around 33% or better to the CUV (in this case). :shades:
Absurd, arrogance, stupidity. Maybe. Certainly, buying a car is an individual and often emotional decision. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many choices out there.
I suspect GM has the differently styled Acadia and Outlook and Enclave to snare more customers. In any event, the FS would have had more customers, even with the merely adequate 3.0 liter, if its styling appealed to more people. But it doesn't. More people prefer the way the other CUVs look.
Chysler seems to have hit the wrong style spot with the Pacifica, and Cadillac as well with the SRX. Doesn't make any of them bad vehicles. Just not great sellers.
15/21 for 4wd Yukon & 16/22 for 2wd Yukon 5524lbs 5265lbs
17/24 for 4wd acadia & 18/26 for 2wd acadia 4900lbs 4700lbs
The 4wd version is the most telling with the numbers being so close. When the hybrid Yukon gets here it'll be 25% more efficient negating the advantage the acadia now enjoys in economy making the decision even more absurd. The current crop of CUV's have done themselves no favors with all the increased weight and horsepower just to placate the consumers demands for more, more, more. You have more now and you also have to pay MORE at the pump. Again we have not solved anything in the exercise with the design paths and priorities that are being realized with each new model coming out.
You would think they could do better than that with all the technology that's avaiable. Why does the current darling acadia need to be hauling around a minimum of 500lbs more for no great increase in footprint compared to the FS. As a FS owner I lament the "improvements of the T-rex that are coming, the CVT/3.0 was the perfect compromise of efficiency/power for this type of vehicle, add in lower weight that the competition and class leading safety and you have a winner on paper and in the reality of day to day if the buying public didn't place such absurd demands on the spec of the CUV. I won't buy a new t-rex to replace our FS as they have sold it down the river by placating consumer demands. I't the classic you can't lead the horse to water and make it drink. When is the american consumer going to catch on the all this shortsightedness.
"When is the american consumer going to catch on the all this shortsightedness."
As soon as they cannot afford it any more or big brother mandates that we all drive a Prius. In the mean time, they will keep and enjoy the type of vehicles they want to buy. It is what America is all about, freedom of choice.
I don't mind getting more power in a vehicle, but I'd rather get better mpg. I don't tow anything in the mountains, so my Freestyle has plenty of power for me. I'd rather they redesign the engine/transmission to boost the highway MPG average closer to 30mpg. If Ford could advertise a 7 passenger vehicle with a highway EPA estimate of 30mpg, I think that would bring in more buyers than a few extra HPs...except for those towing in the mountains.
Other than for towing with fully loaded car, I wonder how people are going to "use" that extra power. I think that the HP and power specs are more for the car magazines and reviews just to give them something to say, and just as an easy way to compare vehicles. It's easy to just compare HP specs, versus comparing the real-world power of a vehicle.
Agreed. I think some people were put off by the CVT (it didn't sound luxurious). But if the styling had been more appealing to consumers, more people would have agreed with you that the 3.0, given the mileage advantage, was adequate to the task.
Ford just screwed up in drawing the 500, FS and Montego. They are innocuous, inoffensive...and ultimately too boring looking to make the projected sales.
"15/21 for 4wd Yukon & 16/22 for 2wd Yukon 5524lbs 5265lbs
17/24 for 4wd acadia & 18/26 for 2wd acadia 4900lbs 4700lbs "
Are these EPA figures? I was using my own real world Freestyle figures against some Explorer people I know. The explorer tends to get less than the EPA, but so far my FS has just about matched EPA.
That's a concern I have with Tahoe/Suburban. C/D recent Suburban test had EPA city at 13, test at 10 :surprise: I know they're hard on vehicles, but that one surprised me.
Comments
So if the Pilot's legroom is considered "poor," then the Acadia's with an extra 2.5" would be considered "satisfactory," with the Freestyle's legroom considered "good" (since it's combined 2nd/3rd row legroom is 3" more than the Acadia's), and full-sized minivans 2nd/3rd row legroom would be considered "excellent."
The 2nd row seats in the Freestyle recline by about 20% if desired. I can't remember if the 3rd row also does this, but I think not.
Crossover GMC Acadia Named ''Most Significant Vehicle'' by Consumers
SANTA MONICA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Edmunds.com, the premier online resource for automotive information, today announced the winners of the sixth annual Edmunds.com Consumers' Most Wanted vehicle awards.
"These awards provide a good idea of what consumers are looking for in their next vehicle," said Karl Brauer, Editor in Chief of Edmunds.com. "This year, consumers voiced the opinion that the domestics are developing some very compelling cars and trucks."
By a considerable margin, the 2007 GMC Acadia won the flagship award, Edmunds.com Consumers’ Most Significant Vehicle of 2007. The next highest finisher was the 2007 Saturn Aura, and the 2007 Honda Fit took third place.
Among manufacturers, Chevrolet led the pack, winning five awards, while Cadillac and Honda tied for second place, each winning four awards in this year's survey.
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&ne- wsId=20070503006109&newsLang=en
I did see some Internet traffic from people wanting to trade a while back, so it must be possible.
I purchased a 07 Outlook XR two weeks ago and I LOVE it!!!
Test drove CX-9,MDX,waited for the Vera Cruz (knob come off during test drive...).
I test drove the Acadia almost two months ago and really liked it but was not crazy about the sheet metal but was still extremely impressed with it.
An Outlook pulled along side me at a stop light and decided to check it out...
Personally I think the Outlook looks better and is a better value costing about a grand less with the same bells and whistles then Acadia.
My Outlook XR is LOADED expect no AWD.
1575 miles including one 600 mile road trip later and I can tell you the lambda platform is near perfect. traded in a 04 Toyota Sienna and believe me there is no loss in seating space for my family.
There is some loss of cargo space when comparing to a minivan.
But when comparing to the other CUV's mentioned above there really is no comparision.The GM lambda's is the CUV to have!
BTW,
I'm asked in disbelief a least twice a week by total strangers "this is a Saturn"?
Yeah baby it's a Saturn...
As a very happy Freestyle owner, I must take some exception to this statement. The FS does not have the engine or horsepower of the GM Lamda platform. I don't really think that people who would like a FS would like a Lamda and vice versa. The design philosophy behind the FS is Volvo; the GM is, well, GM. Two entirely different concepts, even though they are both CUVs.
I would be interested to hear what the actual MPG was on that Outlook. The GMC Acadia forum has only one report, 15 MPG city, 23 MPG highway, 20 overall mixed. This sounds about right for the Lamda. I don't know what speeds or driving style was being used.
The Acadia is 4900 lbs before cargo and passengers; the FS is 4000 (4250 for AWD).
Also, the Lamda has 19.7 cu ft behind the rear seat - but the FS has 22 back there.
How come some of the FS owners here are so intent on justifying their own purchase and/or bashing everybody else's purchase decisions? I assume the majority of people on this forum are more car savvy than the average consumer. Therefore, they most likely did not blindly purchase whichever vehicle they did, but weighed price, feature content, and style to come to a decision. As long as people are happy with their own decision, what's the problem?
Seems like every other post in this thread is somebody extolling the virtues of the cargo space/seating room/price, etc. of the FS, or knocking the same features on anything else. OK, already, we get it...
BTW, we looked at the FS in '05/'06, and I really liked the value/feature aspect. However, it simply did not work for us on space/comfort.
We purchased an Outlook XR AWD on 3/21, and are very happy with the balance of price, features, and style. If somebody thinks we made the wrong choice, it doesn't really matter, now, does it?
Mark
Right now the Acadia and Outlook will be sold at a premium because they're new, but a year from now there will be all sort of deals on them. The Freestyle isn't selling well, so that's why you can get them pretty cheap, so if that's the car you want, then you should be able to get a real good deal on one. But just because a car sells a lot or sells a little doesn't mean that it's any better or worse then another car. It COULD be better or worse, but not JUST because of the sales figures.
Like I said, I paid $23,500 on the family plan for a Freestyle SE with curtain airbags, tri-level climate, and convenience package and it was a good deal. It doesn't have the overall cargo space of the lambdas, but that's okay for me. And I wasn't interested in any of the luxury features either. Just a practical, spacious people-hauler with outstanding safety features, good MPG and a good price. And that's what I have in yes, a boring-looking package!
FWD Acadia only 4600lbs, AWD 4900lbs. And pickup is much better in the lambdas.
Also, the Lamda has 19.7 cu ft behind the rear seat - but the FS has 22 back there.
THe FS is only 20cuft, And that's probably made up iin lambdas by subfloor hide away box.
The GMC Acadia forum has only one report, 15 MPG city, 23 MPG highway, 20 overall mixed.
I've heard 17-18 and 24 w/ average of 21, but different people=different driving styles.
After reading the June MT issue, I have to congradulate the CX9. I do agree that it can run head to head lux sport CUV's like the SRX and MDX, and murders the Q7. But I'm shocked by how decently the Acadia did. Expected it to get murdered, but kept up. 8.2 0-60 time vs the CX9's 8.1. And 4900 lbs curb weight didn't sound bad compared to the CX9's almost 4700. So Acadia performed pretty well too. It took third, but to two Sport CUV's that sacrifice some comfort for the sport. Bottom line: People are trading in MDX's for these to CUVs.
As for the Pilot-if Honda can extend about 5 inches, add a few second and third row legroom inches, and increase cargo space to 100 cuft, then they have the all time winner.Hands down. But it has to look good, too.
I was taking my numbers from the Edmunds review. I thought it was a FWD, but it must have been AWD.
I believe I mentioned the larger and more powerful engine in my remarks...
To each his own. I find my very well powered (not overpowered) and quite comfortable. However, I don't think it was designed for what some people call "comfort" it is a drivers car, and you can feel the road. This sort of engineering is used by Volvo, Honda, and Mercedes. Other manufacturers prefer a softer ride (except for sports models), such as GM and Toyota.
The Freestyle has only a few problems that kept it from being a hit:
1. It name too closely resembled the (poor) Freestar minivan.
2. It was (deliberately) designed to look like the Ford Explorer. From the rear they are very similar. At the time it was designed (around 2002 - 2003) this was a good thing, but SUV sales were down by the time it was introduced.
3. It was designed for fuel economy rather than towing, so it has a fairly small tow rating and a smaller engine.
4. Ford didn't realize that people would not accept the smaller engine and CVT.
5. Ford didn't know how to promote it correctly. I think it has to do with the fact that (except for towing) it does the same functions as the Explorer while costing less and having more space. I don't think Ford ever figured out how to promote the vehicle without cannibalizing Explorer sales. They could have placed it with the Ford 500 family, for example, and promoted it as a "station wagon". It isn't one, of course, but "CUV" was a new concept for Ford at that time.
In my opinion as an owner, the Freestyle has classic styling, is very well powered, and very comfortable. This is after 18 months of ownership. And I can achieve 30 MPG if I want to drive at 65 MPH, while carrying 7 passengers. I think that stands up to any CUV in this discussion.
But I won't be towing 3500 lbs.
Each vehicle in the CUV class has its benefits and detractions. As I said earlier, the FS isn't for everybody; nor are the Lamdas.
I must say, however, that the Acadia pricing is somewhat shocking. I think the FS maxes out at around 32K; the Acadia maxes out at 45K. That is a huge difference.
Congrats on your new purchase.
I could not agree with more as well!
Something that burns may biscuits in these forums are the trolls that pose as average consumers but are really in the employ in one way or another of a competing car maker.
Many are up front about what they do for living and say so but most are not.
You can make a simple statement about a vehical and here they come out of the woodwork usually with a well placed zing.
As a consumer attempting to do my homework you enter these forums for insight,you don't have to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots based on the comments and number of forums they camp out in.
People buy what they buy based on numerous x factors style, brand loyalty,value, perceived status etc.
If someone told me my cat was run over by a Ford I'll never own one... o.k. fine... and I'd consider myself on notice
Btw,
I purchased an Outlook XR recently as well and could not be happier in my decision after months of shopping we felt it was the best overall value and meet all the criteria on my families "need/want" list.
Good luck with yours!
Exactly. Not, it's not a sports car. But neither is it a "land yacht" with no feel of the road. It's pretty much how I like my vehicles to be in terms of road feel.
Ford didn't realize that people would not accept the smaller engine and CVT.
I guess it's hard to underestimate the stupidity of the American public sometimes. :P Funny thing is, now they'll all be happy (maybe) with the new 3.5L engine and typical auto tranny, but they won't actually USE any of that extra power that they got.
Despite a real lack of attention anymore, the Freestyle/Taurus X is a terrific vehicle, if you want a great blend of space and "touring" road manners, without the bulk of a lot of other crossovers.
Now, if Ford would have just promoted them more, or at least does in the new Taurus X variety...
Here we go again with FS owners griping about people who don't love the FS. It's not the perfect vehicle. There are some good uses for extra power-the FS has little pickup. The power will easily be used.
I can't wait to smoke the Taurus X in real driving to prove my point . . just like I routinely smoke Corvettes.
Having power isn't the same as actually USING it. (No, I'm not going to smoke a Corvette owner who actually wants to drag race . . that isn't my point, since so few seem to GET my point.)
I don't think many people buy a Freestyle / Taurus X to drag race.
Is the Freestyle the perfect vehicle? Of course not, there's no such thing. However, it's better than the Taurus X, IMO.
Some of the hybrid forums are this way; for many months I simply stopped reading them at all, because I found myself seeing that particular hybrid model on the road and thinking that the driver was a -- well, I won't say what I thought. But it affected my driving style in relation to that particular hybrid model, and was pointless.
Personally, if I find someone putting down the Freestyle (or posting erroneous data on the FS), I will respond rationally and reasonably - and without putting down their model. But if they are merely extolling the virtues of their own particular choice (be it Outlook, Acadia, Mazda, or whatever), well, I prefer to listen to their reasoning and enjoy their purchase with them. Just because they like their purchase doesn't mean they are attacking my Freestyle! :shades:
FWIW & YMMV...
I didn't "jump" anybody. Merely pointed out to a fellow Freestyle owner that Ford was catering to "the masses" (which, by definition, aren't the brightest folks around) when they upped the horsepower/displacement with a new engine and got rid of the CVT.
Judging by other posts I've read here over the years, you could very well be surprised. :sick: My old Voyager would swap out seats with "universal" mounting bracket holes and I took advantage of that once when I borrowed someone's 2nd row seats. But it's not a given, and captain's chairs won't bolt into the trim level of my current Nissan minivan.
You may find some body diagrams in one of the factory manuals online, and you may be able to access one free. See Online Repair Manuals for some links.
1) Reading lights in 2nd & 3rd rows are way too bright (IMO) for driving with them on. Has anyone put a lower-wattage bulb in there or know whether there'd be a problem? Parts dept. at dealer was useless on this one, saying there's only one bulb spec'd by Ford for it.
2) There's a plastic clip under the front center console armrest that looks like it's meant to hold something up off the floor of the console. Anyone know what it is?
3) My Ltd did not include Sirius, however there's a little antenna fin on the roof. Does that mean it has the satellite radio such that I might only need to have the sat. receiver added?
This forum's great. Thanks again.
Far fetched oppiniion, considereing you have nothing to base it on. No numbers have been released proving the FS is better. In fact what little info that has been released proves the TX in superiority.
And you must do some dangerous driving to smoke anything but a minivan in the FS. Bu thtat's not the point. The point is, the FS was a good vehicle. It needed an upgrade to stay with the competition. This is no bigger than the transition from the '05 to '06 Explorer. Except with a new name.
Again with the downput of other comparisons. Stupid Americans? Stupid for getting what they want and DO use. They will use the extra power. The bottom line is the FS has a lack luster engine. Not totally underpowered, but enough where an improvement will be welcomed.
"The bottom line is the FS has a lack luster engine. Not totally underpowered, but enough where an improvement will be welcomed."
You are so completely incorrect. It's a CUV, not a sport sedan, sport wagon, sports car, race car, etc.. It's meant to carry 7 people safely, reliably, & competantly in comfort and with some economy. It does all of that quite well, perfect no but a great balance of all the necessary attributes. The american buying public is akin to a heard of sheep being lead to the slaughter. People see the new CUV's with more power, more weight, more stuff to break and perhaps most importantly less economy as an improvement, they're not. How can they be an improvement as they pander to the lowest common denominator of the buying public not because they present forward thought on the solution to the archetype of the CUV but because they take the easy way out and just give to the thoughtless and undemanding buying public what they think they "need".
It is one of the better examples of the absurdity and shortsightedness of the american buying public and yes in the end you can even call it stupid with a side order of irresponsible arrogance.
I don't necessarily disagree with your statements, but the whole NOTION of a CUV is an improvement over a body-on-frame SUV, and by its very nature, a CUV is supposed to be more efficient and less wasteful. If "the herd" start figuring out that they can live with carrying 7 people in any of the CUVs compared here - rather than a Tahoe or Expedition - we should be thankful. It ain't a Prius, but it's a start.
Now, back to the Freestyle-bashing...
Maybe the marketer's are the genius' in this big conspiracy theory. Maybe the "improved" cuv's are just the answer to kick the SUV market back into gear as the gap between the 2 will disappear keeping all those high profit tahoe's , explorer's, etc. moving off the lot's and into america's driveways. It's a bait and switch...
The "CUV Comparison" discussion shows up in the Ford Freestyle Forum. This is, in fact, how I found the discussion.
So he is staying on the Freestyle forum. It is a CUV, after all! :surprise:
I think the gap for the Explorer vs. Freestyle would be more like 6 MPG in town and 8 MPG on the road. That is around 33% or better to the CUV (in this case). :shades:
I suspect GM has the differently styled Acadia and Outlook and Enclave to snare more customers. In any event, the FS would have had more customers, even with the merely adequate 3.0 liter, if its styling appealed to more people. But it doesn't. More people prefer the way the other CUVs look.
Chysler seems to have hit the wrong style spot with the Pacifica, and Cadillac as well with the SRX. Doesn't make any of them bad vehicles. Just not great sellers.
5524lbs 5265lbs
17/24 for 4wd acadia & 18/26 for 2wd acadia
4900lbs 4700lbs
The 4wd version is the most telling with the numbers being so close. When the hybrid Yukon gets here it'll be 25% more efficient negating the advantage the acadia now enjoys in economy making the decision even more absurd. The current crop of CUV's have done themselves no favors with all the increased weight and horsepower just to placate the consumers demands for more, more, more. You have more now and you also have to pay MORE at the pump. Again we have not solved anything in the exercise with the design paths and priorities that are being realized with each new model coming out.
You would think they could do better than that with all the technology that's avaiable. Why does the current darling acadia need to be hauling around a minimum of 500lbs more for no great increase in footprint compared to the FS. As a FS owner I lament the "improvements of the T-rex that are coming, the CVT/3.0 was the perfect compromise of efficiency/power for this type of vehicle, add in lower weight that the competition and class leading safety and you have a winner on paper and in the reality of day to day if the buying public didn't place such absurd demands on the spec of the CUV. I won't buy a new t-rex to replace our FS as they have sold it down the river by placating consumer demands. I't the classic you can't lead the horse to water and make it drink. When is the american consumer going to catch on the all this shortsightedness.
As soon as they cannot afford it any more or big brother mandates that we all drive a Prius. In the mean time, they will keep and enjoy the type of vehicles they want to buy.
It is what America is all about, freedom of choice.
Other than for towing with fully loaded car, I wonder how people are going to "use" that extra power. I think that the HP and power specs are more for the car magazines and reviews just to give them something to say, and just as an easy way to compare vehicles. It's easy to just compare HP specs, versus comparing the real-world power of a vehicle.
Ford just screwed up in drawing the 500, FS and Montego. They are innocuous, inoffensive...and ultimately too boring looking to make the projected sales.
5524lbs 5265lbs
17/24 for 4wd acadia & 18/26 for 2wd acadia
4900lbs 4700lbs "
Are these EPA figures? I was using my own real world Freestyle figures against some Explorer people I know. The explorer tends to get less than the EPA, but so far my FS has just about matched EPA.