At least no one can ever refer to the FS as a "repackaged minivan", as I referred to the Acadia a number of posts ago. But what do I know, I drive a Dodge station wagon!
You know, there is nothing wrong with driving what fits your needs. If money and kids were not an option, I'm sure a lot of us would be driving Corvettes, 911s, Hummers, etc... But, we have kids, haul stuff, have limited income and all that other stuff. As long as you do your reaserch and are happy with what you drive, that is the most important thing.
I pushed a broom to get through college, so I know what it's like to be flat broke and at the bottom of the soci-economic ladder. Makes you appreciate the things you have. Also makes you understand what a need is vs. a want. You can be suprised by how little you truely need. My biggest worry now is that my kids are getting spoiled and I fear that they will never experience what it is like at the bottom... I digress...
Why not 350? 400? 450? 'Cuz! then we'll all go power crazy! And that's not good! The world will be corrupt. :mad: Now that that's out of our systems, what's wrong with more power if you get more refinement and better gas mileage, which could be the case.
43 miles is a long way (each way)
So you want the luxury of having a car to drive so you don't hurt your feet. Some like a little extra lux.
If you've purchased an Enclave could you post some pics? I really haven't seen a ton of images of it. The Buick site is too "artsy" with the dim lighting and I keep coming across those concept photos on the internet.
because bigger is always better... Well-nothing wrong with it!
get less mileage and best of all cost more, oh yeah, and they are getting more pretty Getting less mileage? please provide examples because I've not seen one instance of a CUV losing MPG. Costing more? You're right about that- but if you can't afford it, don't buy it. And do you want to drive an ugly car? And all that stuff about manufacturers scheming-different strokes for different folks. Your reason for buying the car you did is different from someone elses, and certainly NOT the best. So quit putting down someone elses choice.
because bigger is always better... Well-nothing wrong with it!"
Acually a lot wrong with it as it has negative impacts on both performance(seemingly why YOU are/might be buying a CUV) and mpg. You still haven't explained with any rational points why the new crop of CUV's have to be as heavy as they are.
"So quit putting down someone elses choice."
I'm not, I'm just looking for an intelligent debate about the direction CUV's in general are heading. SO, if you can thoughfully add to the comparison or debate I'd really like to hear something other than your whining about me being contrary to your opinion which you regard so highly.
That's the problem - few of us are interested in a debate. No discussion of this type ever changes someone's mind. Information is the goal of most of us.
I'd say the best INFORMATION would be for a person to check out the vehicle specs, and then PERSONALLY compare each of the vehicles to see what works best for him.
Why rely on what others have to say if you can go out and test drive one for yourself to answer the question?
"No discussion of this type ever changes someone's mind"
Who are you to say that a well discussed debate/conversation in a forum regarding points of one vs. another couldn't sway a reader to a conclusion different than what he/she may have first considered before reading. A debate/conversation between 2 owner's I would think would be very valuable and pertinent information and pretty much be the whole point of this thread. If you are looking to a "comparison" thread I would suspect you would indeed want to see, well, a discussion comparing one or more of those in question.
Instead it seems people just want to all agree the Lambda's are the second coming and all else are lesser with the FS being a second class citizen to EVERYTHING else. I don't agree, never will and have made different points along the way as to why. The most I get in return is bigger is better, stop raping me, it's ugly, mileage doesn't matter, and my favorite was the person who noted I'll give my opinion in a safer environment(I suspect they have issues with confrontation). People around here don't like people that don't agree with that view. I have had better conversations with my 20 month old than this. If all you want to convey is rote information people can read the spec sheet, if you want a comparison thread that is something worthwhile and insightful engage in a thoughtful debate/converation with other owners of other CUV's supporting your claims with something other than because I said so.
You've asked and you've been answered. Yes, there is some silliness here. We can always provide a timeout if it goes too far. In any case, no one is compelled to participate in the discussion or to read the messages posted here and everyone has complete freedom to scroll past messages they do not want to read.
Meanwhile, let's try a little harder to keep our messages on topic.
"No discussion of this type ever changes someone's mind" I don't agree, never will and have made different points along the way as to why.
Hmm. All of these vehicles have good attributes. However, the marketplace is finding some models to be more popular than others. There is no evidence that vociferous defense of a less popular CUV wiil lead to greater sales. Clearly, the defensiveness of some of these exchanges only cements positions
In any case, no one is compelled to participate in the discussion or to read the messages posted here and everyone has complete freedom to scroll past messages they do not want to read.
Tidester, When I started reading this forum, it was labeled the "Compare the CX-9, Veracruz, Pilot, Acadia, Outlook, Enclave and Freestyle" forum with description "Mazda CX-9, Hyundai Veracruz, Honda Pilot, GMC Acadia, Buick Enclave, Saturn Outlook and Ford Freestyle (which supposedly will be face lifted for '08)."
It has since changed its name to "Crossover SUV Comparison".
While you say that "no one is compelled to participate in the discussion or to read the messages posted here and everyone has complete freedom to scroll past messages they do not want to read," I humbly suggest that Edmunds forums are doing their readers / members a disservice by misleading people into actually thinking that there is much discussion about Crossover SUV comparisons in this forum. I think you are wasting members time when they stumble into this forum thinking they will find comparison information, and then only discovering the true topic of this forum after reading post after post about the Freestyle.
Hence, I suggest changing the name of this forum to "Freestyle versus all other crossovers" or something like that. Another forum can perhaps then be opened where comparisons of other vehicles could actually take place.
I am tired of people whining about the posts in this forum and the heated debate that seems to be going on. They seem to feel threatened because those who love the Freestyle outnumber them and make good arguments. I think we should redirect this discussion away from the forum bashing that it has recently become and take it back to CUV bashing. I don't have time to read through posts that have nothing to do with CUV's and are instead complaining about what others are posting. Please help! Thanks.
Maybe if people compared and discussed as opposed to whine to the host you might have a forum thread more to your liking.
People seem to have lost their sense of humor and their ability to intelligently engage in a meaningful and respectful debate or should I say comparison/discussion.
Why are folks looking for CUVs? To me, it's because they want something a little more practical than sedan. A CUV has more cargo space, and the option to carry more than 5 on occasion.
At least for me, if I had three kids in carseats, there's no way I'd buy anything other than a minivan (Odyssey or Sienna) because you really can't beat the space. If those 3 kids were now out of carseats, then I'd keep the minivan because our family really likes to take long road trips, and even the lambdas (the biggest CUVs out there) can't come close to a minivan for overall interior passenger and cargo space.
Right now I have one child and one on the way, so a CUV fits my needs, since I don't use the 3rd row often. But I think of a CUV as the current station wagon, since they don't make station wagons (hardly) anymore. Plus it's a station wagon with a 3rd row.
How about everyone else? If you're comparing CUVs, tell us how you'll use it and your family size. That way others with similar family/usage situations can see what your reasons where.
There are a lot of different features on these CUVs. It's sort of like comparing a Camry, Accord, Fusion, Mazda6, etc. and saying one is "best." Just tell us specifically what you like about a specific CUV and then respectively accept counter-opinions. There are a lot of Freestyle owners posting to this forum, so expect a lot more posts from them, then from Mazda9 owners.
Why are folks looking for CUVs? To me, it's because they want something a little more practical than sedan. A CUV has more cargo space, and the option to carry more than 5 on occasion.
Good question . . one with multiple answers, I'm sure. In my case, I knew that the Taurus (and wagon) was going to be discontinued. I had a '96 Taurus wagon with almost 100k miles on it, and I wanted to do one of two things:
1) Buy one of the last Taurus wagons on the lot 2) Find a suitable replacement for it
At the time (2005), I looked at several vehicles at the car show in Houston: Dodge Magnum, Toyota Highlander, Lexus RX330, Acura MDX, Chrysler Pacifica. I'm pretty sure that there wasn't a Freestyle there. I think a friend of mine at work told me about the Freestyle later.
The Pacifica was a non-starter for me. Between the Highlander and RX330, the latter was more "plush", but it's styling took away a lot of the usable interior volume, so I preferred the Highlander. The MDX didn't really impress me all that much, either. The Magnum, on the other hand, was something I really wanted to try out . . especially because of the Hemi . . . vroom!
I test drove the Magnum (with a Hemi), and actually considered it for a while. I think this was before the Freestyle had hid dealer lots in any great number. While the extra power was kinda cool (and I would've considered it necessary if I hauled anything on a trailer around), I realized I certainly didn't "need" it. The main problem I had with the vehicle was its limited visibility . . even looking out the front.
Then I finally test drove a Freestyle. This was much more what I had been looking for. I considered it a "wagon" version of the Five Hundred, although it was a "tall wagon". I really liked the ride height on it. Not as low as a typical sedan, but not as high as many of the other SUVs / CUVs. I also really liked the smoothness of the CVT compared to the lousy 4-spd I had had in all my Tauri up to that point. Even though this vehicle was considerably heavier than the Taurus, and it used the same engine, it didn't really feel any more sluggish or seem to have much less acceleration . . I attributed that to the CVT. Where the Taurus would always "hesitate" (before jerking me back when it finally downshifted) when I stomped on the gas to accelerate around somebody on the freeway, the Freestyle was much more responsive yet also smooth.
So, I got the Freestyle in early '06. Paid about invoice for it(X-plan pricing). For the next six months, I enjoyed the Freestyle so much that it was hard for me to go back to enjoy driving the Taurus. Between that and the "employee pricing" that came out in mid '06, I decided to do the unthinkable (for me): I traded in my 2002 Taurus (which still wasn't even paid off) and got a Five Hundred. I made sure I got one with the CVT and AWD so it would be an almost perfect match for the Freestyle.
Were I coming from a large SUV like a Suburban, I don't know if I would've chosen the Freestyle or not. Probably NOT, if I had had "good reasons" for owning the Suburban.
But I think of a CUV as the current station wagon, since they don't make station wagons (hardly) anymore. Plus it's a station wagon with a 3rd row.
Exactly. The third row is nice to have, and the one in the Freestyle is "usable" if you're not going to be putting anybody in that third row for a long trip. A child under 10 would probably be OK back there for extended trips . . but not most adults, and most teenagers, as well.
I actually have the third row folded down almost all the time. That way, I get the same amount of rear space that I had behind my second row in the wagon. It's just that the third row in the Freestyle is actually USABLE (on occasion), unlike that rear-facing seat in the back of my wagon.
What a great post! Takes me back to 2004 when I was last looking. We had then our 2002 GMC Envoy that we still have and love for pulling our 5000# boat and a 1997 Chrysler Town & Country van that had been excellent when our two sons were small and we had all the stuff to haul around. My wife really wanted the Envoy so I was looking for something new. I looked at cars, trucks, vans, SUV's, you name it. My parents bought our Town & Country so we knew that if we really needed to use it we could, so another van was out, as was a huge tank SUV. I liked the new Chrysler 300C but worried that the trunk was too small. I looked at the new Ford 500 and Freestyle as well. I actually liked the look of the 500 but, after driving the 300C, felt that it was underpowered. Did I really need the Hemi? No, but after driving it virtually everything else seemed underpowered. I loved the Freestyle and it's practicality, but decided it was the 2005 version of a Country Squire and was not ready for that yet, plus there was the power issue, at least in my mind. Then the Chrysler dealer got in the first Magnum RT and it was the answer for me. It had the power (needed or not) and the ride/handling of the 300C plus the added cargo capacity I wanted. Yes, it is hard to see out of in the back, but I truly love the car. It is certainly polarizing style wise, but I love it. It gets 25 MPG on the highway yet has 340 HP to satisfy my mid life crisis needs. But, my dilemma is that the lease will be expiring soon on my Magnum. I have been looking at the GM triplets as well as waiting to see the new Taurus X. I have driven the new Ford Edge and Lincoln MKX. Have also driven an Acadia and the new Veracruz and a Santa Fe. They all have pro's and con's, and frankly I have no idea what I am going to end up with. My comments on all of them are as follows:
Acadia: Repackaged van, but very nice if room is the key factor. I am 6'4" and can actually fit in all 3 rows. Hope to see and drive an Enclave soon. No deals yet.
Veracruz: Nice vehicle but 3rd row not big enough. Nearest dealer 60 miles away (biggest negative factor). Santa Fe out for same reason.
Edge/MKX: Nice if 3rd row not needed. Great lease deals on them right now. Tons of room inside and like the looks and the way it drives.
Taurus X: Pics look nice with the new front end. Will be anxious to drive with the new engine and see the updated interior. Useable 3rd row and tons of practicality.
Magnum: May buy it off lease if I can get a deal. Market not good for them now and current leases have much lower residual than mine did in 2004. If I can get them down on a sales price, may just buy it and keep it.
Sorry for the long post, but felt the background was needed to understand how I got to where I am in comparing the new CUV's. Life is good when there are so many good choices out there. None of the new CUV's are bad and which one you get depends on what factors are important to you.
Why not another Magnum RT? Or just BUY the one that you've been leasing? Oops, just re-read it, and see that you ARE considering that option.
Out of curiosity, how much extra was insurance on the Hemi version vs. the smaller engines?
Maybe my mid-life crisis was easier to control . . all it took was a couple of test drives with the Magnum RT. Then I was like, "gee, that was fun, but will I really ever use all this power?"
Of course, if you're really into VALUE, you should be able to find a great deal somewhere on the "Freestyle Classic". Maybe they'll even throw in a free 8-track for ya.
PS: $10 says I'd still blow by you from a stand-still, even with my underpowered Freestyle . . unless I warned ya ahead of time, of course. Then there'd be no match. Haha.
PPS: I still like the looks of the Magnum, though I've grown weary of the 300's looks. Go figure.
PPPS: I wanted my Magnum RT to be in bright canary yellow. With the black windows, I thought it would've the perfect "Dick Tracy" car. Who knows, if they'd had that color, maybe I woulda just had to buy one. :surprise:
How about everyone else? If you're comparing CUVs, tell us how you'll use it and your family size. That way others with similar family/usage situations can see what your reasons where.
Nice post (also to barnstormer's reply).
Location: urban, Minnesota Kids: 2, one out of car seat and big, other in a booster Current vehicle: Subaru Outback
Desired abilities: Able to seat own family, plus maybe one friend of each kid; I am tall (long legs), so size/fit important [typically have drivers seat back far]; able to handle slick roads; able to park in urban setting; comfortable on longer family trips; good handling; reliable
Quick hits: CX9: seemed like too little storage behind 3rd row; good handling, but a bit harsh VC: Nice in many aspects, priced high for Hyundai, numb steering Pilot: many nice features, good pricing available, a bit heavy in handling Lambda trio: have not driven; like the captain's chairs for access to 3rd row; thought materials / seat comfort of 2nd row less than others Freestyle: has been missing key feature (Stability Control) that kept it off the list for a while; TRex will get stability control finally; good engineering of seats, but ends up in a compromised 2nd row with insufficient legroom (which is unfortunate because 500/Taurus has a limo-like 2nd row) [deleted mistaken point that was missing head airbags - optional (Sorry - it was never on any of the FS I looked at personally)] Upcoming highlander: intriguing; need to see if 3rd row access is good
Freestyle: has been missing key features (Side curtain airbags, Stability Control) that kept it off the list for a while; recently added airbags;
The Freestyle has always had side-curtain airbags available as an option. At least in the LTD trim level, and I believe in at least one of the lower two trim levels.
good engineering of seats, but ends up in a compromised 2nd row with insufficient legroom (which is unfortunate because 500/Taurus has a limo-like 2nd row)
I think this is only true if you end up with the second row that's not able to slide front to back. I know that with the LTD trim and the captain's chairs in the second row (like my 2005), you can move back the second row to give more leg room (at the expense of 3rd row legroom, of course).
I haven't actually measured, though, to see if you can get the same legroom as the Five Hundred has in the second row. My initial guess would be that this isn't possible.
VC: Nice in many aspects, priced high for Hyundai, numb steering
All things being equal, this is still the cheapest vehicle on your list, but I definitely agree about the numb steering.
With easily available discounts, both Pilot and Freestyle can be had for much less than VC now.
Upcoming highlander: intriguing; need to see if 3rd row access is good
The upcoming Highlander is 2" shorter than the Veracruz and atleast an inch narrower.
Narrower can work, in a 2/2/2 format (which is all I need); however, the shorter will almost certainly be a problem, most likely in 3rd row room. But for now, at least one of my kids is small
good engineering of seats, but ends up in a compromised 2nd row with insufficient legroom (which is unfortunate because 500/Taurus has a limo-like 2nd row)
I think this is only true if you end up with the second row that's not able to slide front to back. I know that with the LTD trim and the captain's chairs in the second row (like my 2005), you can move back the second row to give more leg room (at the expense of 3rd row legroom, of course). I haven't actually measured, though, to see if you can get the same legroom as the Five Hundred has in the second row. My initial guess would be that this isn't possible.
I did my test in the 2nd row after setting the driver for me. Was not enough room even after putting 2nd all the way back, but then again, the Sienna doesn't pass this test either. The constraint as I recall was that the 2nd row extension was limited to enable the 3rd row to pivot forward for the fold flat floor. [this was a while back, so IIRC]
With easily available discounts, both Pilot and Freestyle can be had for much less than VC now.
They are not selling as many as they used to because there are newer alternatives that match and/or surpass them. They have to use price as an advantage until their newer counterparts come to market.
I never considered the smaller engines in the Magnum. It was one of those "If you don't get the Hemi, why get it at all?" questions. It is classified as a high performance vehicle. The insurance guy did say that I need to not have it when my oldest son, now almost 13, starts driving or will be hit hard with a youthful unmarried male and a high performance car on the insurance. Funny thing is my brother has a 1985 Corvette he has had since new and I love to point out to him that my Dodge family hauling wagon has 110 more horsepower than his hot rod Corvette!! What I really need is an Acadia with the ZO6 Corvette engine in it. That would be a CUV to remember!!!! Or how about a Lightning SVT version of the Taurus X!?!
Or just tow an aux. fuel tank behind you! There is supposed to be an Acadia Denali in the works for 2008 or 2009 that is supposed to have a V8 in it. Won't be 500HP however. What a disappointment. :shades:
The constraint as I recall was that the 2nd row extension was limited to enable the 3rd row to pivot forward for the fold flat floor. [this was a while back, so IIRC]
I think that's correct. Somebody with really long legs would probably have a hard time sitting in the second row of a Freestyle if the front driver/passenger had his seat all the way back. I generally sit with my pretty far back for my height. I can put it back about another inch, though. The vehicle provides for amazing leg-room in the front (as it should), but this definitely comes at the expense of rear leg-room.
Still, it's no worse than many sedans (like the Acura TL, for example) in this regard. It's hard to beat a really large SUV or minivan for lots of legroom all around if you need it.
They are not selling as many as they used to because there are newer alternatives that match and/or surpass them. They have to use price as an advantage until their newer counterparts come to market.
And the "value consumer" is going to be asking the right questions to see if he can take advantage of this. How much does one really NEED all the extras being offered now? Versus WANT . . and just how much is he really willing to PAY for these things?
I never considered the smaller engines in the Magnum. It was one of those "If you don't get the Hemi, why get it at all?" questions.
Sounds like we think alike, then. :shades:
I really started out thinking the Magnum RT would be the perfect car for me . . I would get the utility of a station wagon that I wanted, but the "sports-car" (or at least the HP of one) that I (thought I) wanted for my "mid life crisis". I wasn't really having a mid-life crisis, I just invented it in order to help justify the car.
The HP is great, but the Magnum really drives well too. I drove from far S.E. Kansas to Cheyenne Wyoming one day and was not exhausted after the drive in the Magnum. I have owned few cars that I can do that in. I just drove a new Lincoln MKX for 3 days. It was a very nice vehicle and was fully optioned at $42,000, but it just wasn't the same as the Mag.
Somebody with really long legs would probably have a hard time sitting in the second row of a Freestyle if the front driver/passenger had his seat all the way back. huh? 40+"
I wish they had one now. I always thought the "sport" version on minivans was the dumbest thing I had ever seen. It is a MINIVAN! The is absolutely nothing sporty about a 7+ passenger anything. I think some people are just overcompensating...
How about everyone else? If you're comparing CUVs, tell us how you'll use it and your family size. That way others with similar family/usage situations can see what your reasons where.
Disclaimer: The views expressed are not directed towards any person in particular. YMMV.
Here is a logical reasoning and an elimination process from my personal priorities and perspective: I think the comparison has 3 aspects - (1) What I need (2) What I want and how bad, and (3) What is available. If I am missing a vehicle, please let me know.
Need: A vehicle with high driving position (for better visibility, where everybody around me is driving a tank). To carry 2 adults + 2 kids in car seat, and 2 more adults (occasionally). Nothing to tow.
Outcome: sedans are out, options left are minivans, truck based SUV's and CUV's. For people capacity, RX-350, CX-7, Xterra, Pathfinder, FX, Murano and the CR-V are OUT.
Want: Blueish Xenon HID headlights. Those common and yellow headlights are so 20th century and outdated! The projector lamps - same old yellow color, not good light.
Outcome: Veracruz, Acadia, Highlander, Sienna, Tribeca, Pilot, Odyssey and anything Ford are OUT. Still in consideration: Saturn Outlook XR, Mazda-CX9 (GT), Buick Enclave, Acura MDX, BMW X5 and Volvo XC-90.
Want a reasonable gas mileage - truck based SUV's are OUT, not really a problem since I am not towing anything.
Want an adult to be able to sit in 3rd row - XC-90 and X5 goes out of consideration for this one, too.
Want: Luxury and Comfort, Sleek looks to my eyes (and the wife's)
So the comparison is between the 4 (Pointing out the differentiators only, all have Tire Pressure Monitors and air conditioning):
1. Saturn Outlook XR - Pros: Captains chair, bold design, folding mirrors, remote starter Cons: Too boxy, poor visibility, high cost for options (loaded the way I want it is about $40,000) ... OUT
2. Mazda CX-9 GT - Pros: Sleek looks, Remote starter, zoom-zoom style Cons: Noisy interior - seats not comfortable enough, coarse leather, very large rear doors, bad navigation unit... OUT
3. Buick Enclave CXL (still need to test-drive one) - Pros: Sleek looks, Folding mirror, Captains chairs, mufti-functional remote Cons: Too long, difficult to maneuver.
4. Acura MDX - Pros: SH-AWD, Bells and whistles factory, comfortable seats, quality leather Cons: Ugly grille (or shield), plastic in place of wood, Leak prone moonroof (from posts on Edmunds), dusty display difficult to read when the sun shines on it, needs premium gas, poor 3rd row access, unacceptable option packages (Nobody could tell me why I need a DVD player to get a power liftgate).
I will miss the rain sensing wipers, but I will have the following amenities in whichever I buy: Power liftgate, Rearview camera, Leather upholstery, Auto dimming mirror, wood grained steering wheel.
If the new Highlander offers rain sensing wipers, I will consider it and buy aftermarket Xenon headlights. The reason for the compromise is the ease of accessing the 3rd row without having to slide the 2nd row seats forward.
Assumptions: The automakers know how many HP and how much torque a vehicle needs, and they put the appropriate engine and transmission. To some of you I might be an idiot - ("This guy is after looks and doesnt consider the HP or the compression ratio"), and thats OK. I do not feel knowledgeable or competent enough to solve the differential equations governing the thermodynamics of the IC engines. 0-60 mph in anywhere between 8 and 15 sec is fine with me, I am not going to race anybody at stop lights. The manufacturer knows what the safety features are required and available, and have thrm in already (stability control, air bags, etc.)
Summary: I am shopping for a 6+ seater vehicle with a high driving position that offers Bi-Xenon headlamps. Rest is the comparison of values of amenities. The shortlist has come down to Acura MDX and Buick Enclave.
Thanks for bearing with the long post. Best wishes, - MS.
Have you seen just how far back the front seat can go?
Yes, but even all the way back (which is how I keep the front passenger seat) there still is lots of room in the 2nd row (and my second row is the bench and doesn't slide). The FS has more 2nd row legroom than any other CUV, so if you think it's lacking legroom, then beware of the others.
Plus the 2nd row seats in the FS sit up pretty high, more chair-like, then a lot of minivans or other CUVs.
You made the fatal mistake of not even considering or mentioning the Freestyle in your post. No posts are allowed on this forum that do not mention the Freestyle. Please go back and edit your post and tell us why you are now going to buy the Freestyle. :P
In all seriousness, just curious why you would eliminate the Acadia at the outset based on headlamps. You realize the Acadia has the same optional HID headlamps as the Outlook and Enclave, right?
Give the MDX grill a chance. It is creative and different, and IMHO, very attractive. It is not a copy, or a derivative, of anything else. The whole of the package is drawn rather well, I think, but of course to each his or her own.
The tidy dimensions are nice too, but do cut into the third row space. If you don't have to use the third row much, then you will appreciate not having to park all that extra sheet metal some of the others have. The Veracruz and the 2008 Tribeca are also trim. If creative grills turn you off, the new Tribeca now has a very conventional, but attractive, one.
I support your headlight choice too. Once you've had the blue ones, it is hard to go back to the less effective yellow ones.
Thanks for all the responses. Here's to the comments:
Gregg: MDX grille is not stopping me from buying it. I mentioned it the way I see it (even the NY times calls it a duck). What I personally don't like about the shape is the rounded window panels, I prefer straighter lines. But even that is not a show-stopper (ateixeira is right, the interior compensates a lot) - I posted my gripes on another list - created one called Acura MDX vs. Buick Enclave. Excuse my ignorance, but I don't know how to post a pointer to that discussion.
The VC has very little room behind 3rd row, and no Xenon. I liked the Tribeca for its fit, finish, dash and 3rd row access - the new model is going to be even better, with the new grille and 3.6L engine. But, the Xenon headlights will be offered only in Canada, so OUT for me.
About those headlights: In the past, we didn't have a choice, everything was yellow. Now that we do, I choose the blue (better, IMO) one. May be it is not SO important, but every one of us have our own peculiarities, right? Folks do choose cars based on external paint and interior (cloth/leather), too.
For completeness, I tried the Mitsubishi Outlander, too. The packaging is good, but the 3rd row seat is a joke.
loach: About the Freestyle, I did think about it, and mentioned "anything Ford". If you go to the Ford site, not a single vehicle offer those headlights. It is high on my priority list and the FS does not offer anything significant to compensate. Sooooo.... no Freestyle for me.
Btw, Acadia does not offer Xenon headlights. It is standard for the Enclave and comes as a $500 option for the Saturn Outlook XR. I checked that with a GMC-Buick-Pontiac sales person, too. They are expecting a shipment of Enclaves this week, so hopefully I'll get to test-drive one.
Let me pose this question to you, on car selection. I realize that many of you are 6'-ers, worrying about leg room and head room. In contrast, all the people in my car are less than 5'6", so space is not a big problem for me. However, 2 of the adults are in their 70's and not at the peak of agility. I'd like to avoid the turning and twisting as much as possible for them to access the 3rd row. In that respect, would you recommend the MDX, or the Enclave? Whichever you vote for, would you recommend the side steps or running boards? Thank you, - MS.
For me, the sidesteps are fine for climbing INTO a vehicle, when the front of your foot is using the step, but they're really awkward when exiting a vehicle because you have to twist your foot to us them...sort of like walking down a ladder. I will never buy a vehicle so high that you need running boards to get in/out comfortably.
Btw, Acadia does not offer Xenon headlights. It is standard for the Enclave and comes as a $500 option for the Saturn Outlook XR. I checked that with a GMC-Buick-Pontiac sales person, too. They are expecting a shipment of Enclaves this week, so hopefully I'll get to test-drive one.
HID headlamps are a $500 option on the Acadia SLT2, just like on the Outlook XR. You may want to rely less on that particular salesperson.
Hi hardhawk: Yes, you are right, the HID's are available on the Acadia SLT-2, for $500. I just went to their site and built one.
I added navigation ($2,145), headlamp ($500) and sunroof ($1,300) packages, and the MSRP comes out to $40,050. This is the same reason I rejected Outlook a while back. It still doesn't have a rearview camera, and Enclave has the advantage of articulating head lamps (rotates 5-15deg with steering and speed), so I think it will lose the options war with Enclave.
Kinda silly, IMHO, about GM pitting 3 of their own vehicles against each other. Oh well, I am not a business major, they must have their own rationale for this. Best wishes, - MS.
Comments
You know, there is nothing wrong with driving what fits your needs. If money and kids were not an option, I'm sure a lot of us would be driving Corvettes, 911s, Hummers, etc... But, we have kids, haul stuff, have limited income and all that other stuff. As long as you do your reaserch and are happy with what you drive, that is the most important thing.
I pushed a broom to get through college, so I know what it's like to be flat broke and at the bottom of the soci-economic ladder. Makes you appreciate the things you have. Also makes you understand what a need is vs. a want. You can be suprised by how little you truely need. My biggest worry now is that my kids are getting spoiled and I fear that they will never experience what it is like at the bottom... I digress...
'Cuz! then we'll all go power crazy! And that's not good! The world will be corrupt. :mad:
Now that that's out of our systems, what's wrong with more power if you get more refinement and better gas mileage, which could be the case.
43 miles is a long way (each way)
So you want the luxury of having a car to drive so you don't hurt your feet. Some like a little extra lux.
Not sure i want to.
Well-nothing wrong with it!
get less mileage and best of all cost more, oh yeah, and they are getting more pretty
Getting less mileage? please provide examples because I've not seen one instance of a CUV losing MPG. Costing more? You're right about that- but if you can't afford it, don't buy it. And do you want to drive an ugly car? And all that stuff about manufacturers scheming-different strokes for different folks. Your reason for buying the car you did is different from someone elses, and certainly NOT the best. So quit putting down someone elses choice.
Abuse? Whose abusing you? No one says anything bad about the FS, unless it's a response.
Well-nothing wrong with it!"
Acually a lot wrong with it as it has negative impacts on both performance(seemingly why YOU are/might be buying a CUV) and mpg. You still haven't explained with any rational points why the new crop of CUV's have to be as heavy as they are.
"So quit putting down someone elses choice."
I'm not, I'm just looking for an intelligent debate about the direction CUV's in general are heading. SO, if you can thoughfully add to the comparison or debate I'd really like to hear something other than your whining about me being contrary to your opinion which you regard so highly.
I would say why not redesign the engine so that you get even BETTER gas mileage, by keeping the power more in line with what one really needs.
IOW, if you can take the current 3.0 and redesign it to 3.5 and better the gas mileage, just think of what you could do the mpg if you left it at 3.0
I see . . so "underpowered" is a good thing.
I'd say the best INFORMATION would be for a person to check out the vehicle specs, and then PERSONALLY compare each of the vehicles to see what works best for him.
Why rely on what others have to say if you can go out and test drive one for yourself to answer the question?
Who are you to say that a well discussed debate/conversation in a forum regarding points of one vs. another couldn't sway a reader to a conclusion different than what he/she may have first considered before reading. A debate/conversation between 2 owner's I would think would be very valuable and pertinent information and pretty much be the whole point of this thread. If you are looking to a "comparison" thread I would suspect you would indeed want to see, well, a discussion comparing one or more of those in question.
Instead it seems people just want to all agree the Lambda's are the second coming and all else are lesser with the FS being a second class citizen to EVERYTHING else. I don't agree, never will and have made different points along the way as to why. The most I get in return is bigger is better, stop raping me, it's ugly, mileage doesn't matter, and my favorite was the person who noted I'll give my opinion in a safer environment(I suspect they have issues with confrontation). People around here don't like people that don't agree with that view. I have had better conversations with my 20 month old than this. If all you want to convey is rote information people can read the spec sheet, if you want a comparison thread that is something worthwhile and insightful engage in a thoughtful debate/converation with other owners of other CUV's supporting your claims with something other than because I said so.
You've asked and you've been answered. Yes, there is some silliness here. We can always provide a timeout if it goes too far. In any case, no one is compelled to participate in the discussion or to read the messages posted here and everyone has complete freedom to scroll past messages they do not want to read.
Meanwhile, let's try a little harder to keep our messages on topic.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
I don't agree, never will and have made different points along the way as to why.
Hmm. All of these vehicles have good attributes. However, the marketplace is finding some models to be more popular than others. There is no evidence that vociferous defense of a less popular CUV wiil lead to greater sales. Clearly, the defensiveness of some of these exchanges only cements positions
Tidester,
When I started reading this forum, it was labeled the "Compare the CX-9, Veracruz, Pilot, Acadia, Outlook, Enclave and Freestyle" forum with description "Mazda CX-9, Hyundai Veracruz, Honda Pilot, GMC Acadia, Buick Enclave, Saturn Outlook and Ford Freestyle (which supposedly will be face lifted for '08)."
It has since changed its name to "Crossover SUV Comparison".
While you say that "no one is compelled to participate in the discussion or to read the messages posted here and everyone has complete freedom to scroll past messages they do not want to read," I humbly suggest that Edmunds forums are doing their readers / members a disservice by misleading people into actually thinking that there is much discussion about Crossover SUV comparisons in this forum. I think you are wasting members time when they stumble into this forum thinking they will find comparison information, and then only discovering the true topic of this forum after reading post after post about the Freestyle.
Hence, I suggest changing the name of this forum to "Freestyle versus all other crossovers" or something like that. Another forum can perhaps then be opened where comparisons of other vehicles could actually take place.
I am tired of people whining about the posts in this forum and the heated debate that seems to be going on. They seem to feel threatened because those who love the Freestyle outnumber them and make good arguments. I think we should redirect this discussion away from the forum bashing that it has recently become and take it back to CUV bashing. I don't have time to read through posts that have nothing to do with CUV's and are instead complaining about what others are posting. Please help! Thanks.
People seem to have lost their sense of humor and their ability to intelligently engage in a meaningful and respectful debate or should I say comparison/discussion.
At least for me, if I had three kids in carseats, there's no way I'd buy anything other than a minivan (Odyssey or Sienna) because you really can't beat the space. If those 3 kids were now out of carseats, then I'd keep the minivan because our family really likes to take long road trips, and even the lambdas (the biggest CUVs out there) can't come close to a minivan for overall interior passenger and cargo space.
Right now I have one child and one on the way, so a CUV fits my needs, since I don't use the 3rd row often. But I think of a CUV as the current station wagon, since they don't make station wagons (hardly) anymore. Plus it's a station wagon with a 3rd row.
How about everyone else? If you're comparing CUVs, tell us how you'll use it and your family size. That way others with similar family/usage situations can see what your reasons where.
There are a lot of different features on these CUVs. It's sort of like comparing a Camry, Accord, Fusion, Mazda6, etc. and saying one is "best." Just tell us specifically what you like about a specific CUV and then respectively accept counter-opinions. There are a lot of Freestyle owners posting to this forum, so expect a lot more posts from them, then from Mazda9 owners.
Good question . . one with multiple answers, I'm sure. In my case, I knew that the Taurus (and wagon) was going to be discontinued. I had a '96 Taurus wagon with almost 100k miles on it, and I wanted to do one of two things:
1) Buy one of the last Taurus wagons on the lot
2) Find a suitable replacement for it
At the time (2005), I looked at several vehicles at the car show in Houston: Dodge Magnum, Toyota Highlander, Lexus RX330, Acura MDX, Chrysler Pacifica. I'm pretty sure that there wasn't a Freestyle there. I think a friend of mine at work told me about the Freestyle later.
The Pacifica was a non-starter for me. Between the Highlander and RX330, the latter was more "plush", but it's styling took away a lot of the usable interior volume, so I preferred the Highlander. The MDX didn't really impress me all that much, either. The Magnum, on the other hand, was something I really wanted to try out . . especially because of the Hemi . . . vroom!
I test drove the Magnum (with a Hemi), and actually considered it for a while. I think this was before the Freestyle had hid dealer lots in any great number. While the extra power was kinda cool (and I would've considered it necessary if I hauled anything on a trailer around), I realized I certainly didn't "need" it. The main problem I had with the vehicle was its limited visibility . . even looking out the front.
Then I finally test drove a Freestyle. This was much more what I had been looking for. I considered it a "wagon" version of the Five Hundred, although it was a "tall wagon". I really liked the ride height on it. Not as low as a typical sedan, but not as high as many of the other SUVs / CUVs. I also really liked the smoothness of the CVT compared to the lousy 4-spd I had had in all my Tauri up to that point. Even though this vehicle was considerably heavier than the Taurus, and it used the same engine, it didn't really feel any more sluggish or seem to have much less acceleration . . I attributed that to the CVT. Where the Taurus would always "hesitate" (before jerking me back when it finally downshifted) when I stomped on the gas to accelerate around somebody on the freeway, the Freestyle was much more responsive yet also smooth.
So, I got the Freestyle in early '06. Paid about invoice for it(X-plan pricing). For the next six months, I enjoyed the Freestyle so much that it was hard for me to go back to enjoy driving the Taurus. Between that and the "employee pricing" that came out in mid '06, I decided to do the unthinkable (for me): I traded in my 2002 Taurus (which still wasn't even paid off) and got a Five Hundred. I made sure I got one with the CVT and AWD so it would be an almost perfect match for the Freestyle.
Were I coming from a large SUV like a Suburban, I don't know if I would've chosen the Freestyle or not. Probably NOT, if I had had "good reasons" for owning the Suburban.
But I think of a CUV as the current station wagon, since they don't make station wagons (hardly) anymore. Plus it's a station wagon with a 3rd row.
Exactly. The third row is nice to have, and the one in the Freestyle is "usable" if you're not going to be putting anybody in that third row for a long trip. A child under 10 would probably be OK back there for extended trips . . but not most adults, and most teenagers, as well.
I actually have the third row folded down almost all the time. That way, I get the same amount of rear space that I had behind my second row in the wagon. It's just that the third row in the Freestyle is actually USABLE (on occasion), unlike that rear-facing seat in the back of my wagon.
Acadia: Repackaged van, but very nice if room is the key factor. I am 6'4" and can actually fit in all 3 rows. Hope to see and drive an Enclave soon. No deals yet.
Veracruz: Nice vehicle but 3rd row not big enough. Nearest dealer 60 miles away (biggest negative factor). Santa Fe out for same reason.
Edge/MKX: Nice if 3rd row not needed. Great lease deals on them right now. Tons of room inside and like the looks and the way it drives.
Taurus X: Pics look nice with the new front end. Will be anxious to drive with the new engine and see the updated interior. Useable 3rd row and tons of practicality.
Magnum: May buy it off lease if I can get a deal. Market not good for them now and current leases have much lower residual than mine did in 2004. If I can get them down on a sales price, may just buy it and keep it.
Sorry for the long post, but felt the background was needed to understand how I got to where I am in comparing the new CUV's. Life is good when there are so many good choices out there. None of the new CUV's are bad and which one you get depends on what factors are important to you.
Out of curiosity, how much extra was insurance on the Hemi version vs. the smaller engines?
Maybe my mid-life crisis was easier to control . . all it took was a couple of test drives with the Magnum RT. Then I was like, "gee, that was fun, but will I really ever use all this power?"
Of course, if you're really into VALUE, you should be able to find a great deal somewhere on the "Freestyle Classic". Maybe they'll even throw in a free 8-track for ya.
PS: $10 says I'd still blow by you from a stand-still, even with my underpowered Freestyle . . unless I warned ya ahead of time, of course. Then there'd be no match. Haha.
PPS: I still like the looks of the Magnum, though I've grown weary of the 300's looks. Go figure.
PPPS: I wanted my Magnum RT to be in bright canary yellow. With the black windows, I thought it would've the perfect "Dick Tracy" car. Who knows, if they'd had that color, maybe I woulda just had to buy one. :surprise:
Nice post (also to barnstormer's reply).
Location: urban, Minnesota
Kids: 2, one out of car seat and big, other in a booster
Current vehicle: Subaru Outback
Desired abilities: Able to seat own family, plus maybe one friend of each kid; I am tall (long legs), so size/fit important [typically have drivers seat back far]; able to handle slick roads; able to park in urban setting; comfortable on longer family trips; good handling; reliable
Quick hits:
CX9: seemed like too little storage behind 3rd row; good handling, but a bit harsh
VC: Nice in many aspects, priced high for Hyundai, numb steering
Pilot: many nice features, good pricing available, a bit heavy in handling
Lambda trio: have not driven; like the captain's chairs for access to 3rd row; thought materials / seat comfort of 2nd row less than others
Freestyle: has been missing key feature (Stability Control) that kept it off the list for a while; TRex will get stability control finally; good engineering of seats, but ends up in a compromised 2nd row with insufficient legroom (which is unfortunate because 500/Taurus has a limo-like 2nd row)
[deleted mistaken point that was missing head airbags - optional (Sorry - it was never on any of the FS I looked at personally)]
Upcoming highlander: intriguing; need to see if 3rd row access is good
The Freestyle has always had side-curtain airbags available as an option. At least in the LTD trim level, and I believe in at least one of the lower two trim levels.
good engineering of seats, but ends up in a compromised 2nd row with insufficient legroom (which is unfortunate because 500/Taurus has a limo-like 2nd row)
I think this is only true if you end up with the second row that's not able to slide front to back. I know that with the LTD trim and the captain's chairs in the second row (like my 2005), you can move back the second row to give more leg room (at the expense of 3rd row legroom, of course).
I haven't actually measured, though, to see if you can get the same legroom as the Five Hundred has in the second row. My initial guess would be that this isn't possible.
All things being equal, this is still the cheapest vehicle on your list, but I definitely agree about the numb steering.
Upcoming highlander: intriguing; need to see if 3rd row access is good
The upcoming Highlander is 2" shorter than the Veracruz and atleast an inch narrower.
All things being equal, this is still the cheapest vehicle on your list, but I definitely agree about the numb steering.
With easily available discounts, both Pilot and Freestyle can be had for much less than VC now.
Upcoming highlander: intriguing; need to see if 3rd row access is good
The upcoming Highlander is 2" shorter than the Veracruz and atleast an inch narrower.
Narrower can work, in a 2/2/2 format (which is all I need); however, the shorter will almost certainly be a problem, most likely in 3rd row room. But for now, at least one of my kids is small
I think this is only true if you end up with the second row that's not able to slide front to back. I know that with the LTD trim and the captain's chairs in the second row (like my 2005), you can move back the second row to give more leg room (at the expense of 3rd row legroom, of course).
I haven't actually measured, though, to see if you can get the same legroom as the Five Hundred has in the second row. My initial guess would be that this isn't possible.
I did my test in the 2nd row after setting the driver for me. Was not enough room even after putting 2nd all the way back, but then again, the Sienna doesn't pass this test either. The constraint as I recall was that the 2nd row extension was limited to enable the 3rd row to pivot forward for the fold flat floor. [this was a while back, so IIRC]
They are not selling as many as they used to because there are newer alternatives that match and/or surpass them. They have to use price as an advantage until their newer counterparts come to market.
They should go in the other direction and maybe offer an Outlook Greenline hybrid.
I think that's correct. Somebody with really long legs would probably have a hard time sitting in the second row of a Freestyle if the front driver/passenger had his seat all the way back. I generally sit with my pretty far back for my height. I can put it back about another inch, though. The vehicle provides for amazing leg-room in the front (as it should), but this definitely comes at the expense of rear leg-room.
Still, it's no worse than many sedans (like the Acura TL, for example) in this regard. It's hard to beat a really large SUV or minivan for lots of legroom all around if you need it.
And the "value consumer" is going to be asking the right questions to see if he can take advantage of this. How much does one really NEED all the extras being offered now? Versus WANT . . and just how much is he really willing to PAY for these things?
Sounds like we think alike, then. :shades:
I really started out thinking the Magnum RT would be the perfect car for me . . I would get the utility of a station wagon that I wanted, but the "sports-car" (or at least the HP of one) that I (thought I) wanted for my "mid life crisis". I wasn't really having a mid-life crisis, I just invented it in order to help justify the car.
Disclaimer: The views expressed are not directed towards any person in particular. YMMV.
Here is a logical reasoning and an elimination process from my personal priorities and perspective: I think the comparison has 3 aspects - (1) What I need (2) What I want and how bad, and (3) What is available. If I am missing a vehicle, please let me know.
Need: A vehicle with high driving position (for better visibility, where everybody around me is driving a tank).
To carry 2 adults + 2 kids in car seat, and 2 more adults (occasionally). Nothing to tow.
Outcome: sedans are out, options left are minivans, truck based SUV's and CUV's. For people capacity, RX-350, CX-7, Xterra, Pathfinder, FX, Murano and the CR-V are OUT.
Want: Blueish Xenon HID headlights. Those common and yellow headlights are so 20th century and outdated! The projector lamps - same old yellow color, not good light.
Outcome: Veracruz, Acadia, Highlander, Sienna, Tribeca, Pilot, Odyssey and anything Ford are OUT. Still in consideration: Saturn Outlook XR, Mazda-CX9 (GT), Buick Enclave, Acura MDX, BMW X5 and Volvo XC-90.
Want a reasonable gas mileage - truck based SUV's are OUT, not really a problem since I am not towing anything.
Want an adult to be able to sit in 3rd row - XC-90 and X5 goes out of consideration for this one, too.
Want: Luxury and Comfort, Sleek looks to my eyes (and the wife's)
So the comparison is between the 4 (Pointing out the differentiators only, all have Tire Pressure Monitors and air conditioning):
1. Saturn Outlook XR -
Pros: Captains chair, bold design, folding mirrors, remote starter
Cons: Too boxy, poor visibility, high cost for options (loaded the way I want it is about $40,000) ... OUT
2. Mazda CX-9 GT -
Pros: Sleek looks, Remote starter, zoom-zoom style
Cons: Noisy interior - seats not comfortable enough, coarse leather, very large rear doors, bad navigation unit... OUT
3. Buick Enclave CXL (still need to test-drive one) -
Pros: Sleek looks, Folding mirror, Captains chairs, mufti-functional remote
Cons: Too long, difficult to maneuver.
4. Acura MDX -
Pros: SH-AWD, Bells and whistles factory, comfortable seats, quality leather
Cons: Ugly grille (or shield), plastic in place of wood, Leak prone moonroof (from posts on Edmunds), dusty display difficult to read when the sun shines on it, needs premium gas, poor 3rd row access, unacceptable option packages (Nobody could tell me why I need a DVD player to get a power liftgate).
I will miss the rain sensing wipers, but I will have the following amenities in whichever I buy: Power liftgate, Rearview camera, Leather upholstery, Auto dimming mirror, wood grained steering wheel.
If the new Highlander offers rain sensing wipers, I will consider it and buy aftermarket Xenon headlights. The reason for the compromise is the ease of accessing the 3rd row without having to slide the 2nd row seats forward.
Assumptions: The automakers know how many HP and how much torque a vehicle needs, and they put the appropriate engine and transmission. To some of you I might be an idiot - ("This guy is after looks and doesnt consider the HP or the compression ratio"), and thats OK. I do not feel knowledgeable or competent enough to solve the differential equations governing the thermodynamics of the IC engines. 0-60 mph in anywhere between 8 and 15 sec is fine with me, I am not going to race anybody at stop lights. The manufacturer knows what the safety features are required and available, and have thrm in already (stability control, air bags, etc.)
Summary: I am shopping for a 6+ seater vehicle with a high driving position that offers Bi-Xenon headlamps. Rest is the comparison of values of amenities. The shortlist has come down to Acura MDX and Buick Enclave.
Thanks for bearing with the long post. Best wishes, - MS.
Yes, but even all the way back (which is how I keep the front passenger seat) there still is lots of room in the 2nd row (and my second row is the bench and doesn't slide). The FS has more 2nd row legroom than any other CUV, so if you think it's lacking legroom, then beware of the others.
Plus the 2nd row seats in the FS sit up pretty high, more chair-like, then a lot of minivans or other CUVs.
In all seriousness, just curious why you would eliminate the Acadia at the outset based on headlamps. You realize the Acadia has the same optional HID headlamps as the Outlook and Enclave, right?
The tidy dimensions are nice too, but do cut into the third row space. If you don't have to use the third row much, then you will appreciate not having to park all that extra sheet metal some of the others have. The Veracruz and the 2008 Tribeca are also trim. If creative grills turn you off, the new Tribeca now has a very conventional, but attractive, one.
I support your headlight choice too. Once you've had the blue ones, it is hard to go back to the less effective yellow ones.
Gregg: MDX grille is not stopping me from buying it. I mentioned it the way I see it (even the NY times calls it a duck). What I personally don't like about the shape is the rounded window panels, I prefer straighter lines. But even that is not a show-stopper (ateixeira is right, the interior compensates a lot) - I posted my gripes on another list - created one called Acura MDX vs. Buick Enclave. Excuse my ignorance, but I don't know how to post a pointer to that discussion.
The VC has very little room behind 3rd row, and no Xenon. I liked the Tribeca for its fit, finish, dash and 3rd row access - the new model is going to be even better, with the new grille and 3.6L engine. But, the Xenon headlights will be offered only in Canada, so OUT for me.
About those headlights: In the past, we didn't have a choice, everything was yellow. Now that we do, I choose the blue (better, IMO) one. May be it is not SO important, but every one of us have our own peculiarities, right? Folks do choose cars based on external paint and interior (cloth/leather), too.
For completeness, I tried the Mitsubishi Outlander, too. The packaging is good, but the 3rd row seat is a joke.
loach: About the Freestyle, I did think about it, and mentioned "anything Ford". If you go to the Ford site, not a single vehicle offer those headlights. It is high on my priority list and the FS does not offer anything significant to compensate. Sooooo.... no Freestyle for me.
Btw, Acadia does not offer Xenon headlights. It is standard for the Enclave and comes as a $500 option for the Saturn Outlook XR. I checked that with a GMC-Buick-Pontiac sales person, too. They are expecting a shipment of Enclaves this week, so hopefully I'll get to test-drive one.
Let me pose this question to you, on car selection. I realize that many of you are 6'-ers, worrying about leg room and head room. In contrast, all the people in my car are less than 5'6", so space is not a big problem for me. However, 2 of the adults are in their 70's and not at the peak of agility. I'd like to avoid the turning and twisting as much as possible for them to access the 3rd row. In that respect, would you recommend the MDX, or the Enclave? Whichever you vote for, would you recommend the side steps or running boards? Thank you, - MS.
HID headlamps are a $500 option on the Acadia SLT2, just like on the Outlook XR. You may want to rely less on that particular salesperson.
Yes, you are right, the HID's are available on the Acadia SLT-2, for $500. I just went to their site and built one.
I added navigation ($2,145), headlamp ($500) and sunroof ($1,300) packages, and the MSRP comes out to $40,050. This is the same reason I rejected Outlook a while back. It still doesn't have a rearview camera, and Enclave has the advantage of articulating head lamps (rotates 5-15deg with steering and speed), so I think it will lose the options war with Enclave.
Kinda silly, IMHO, about GM pitting 3 of their own vehicles against each other. Oh well, I am not a business major, they must have their own rationale for this. Best wishes, - MS.