What are you comparing between? The differenxce between the Acadia and FS cargo is about 35 cubes. Ground clearance wise, I believe they are the same.
Category wise, They have to be in the same one. The MB GL is in the same category as the Escalade, yet escalade has over 20 more cubic ft of cargo space. But like the FS vs a Lambda, the seating arrangements and sizes are the same.
"A CUV will get places where the FS and Pacifica can't. Maybe not Jeep style, in a rock-climbing kind of way, but at least able to get into a camping trail without scraping their sports car-like 5" of ground clearance (manufacturer's data)."
I have to admit who ever wrote that doesn't really know the FS. It has 8 in of ground clearance. Some one tell me if I'm wrong about that.
"the Lambdas are a no-excuses great effort. Not perfect but very competent."
It's all excuses based on weight issues alone, but that's not new news to anyone around here to hear that from me. Take that weight off and I would have happily conceded the fact that gm did their homework and put out a good product. Until they do that I think you are all being snowed. Read the reviews and they call them ponderous and marginal handlers, It's not just me folks...
excess weight = bad
Someone tell me that it would NOT be a BETTER vehicle if it weighed a minimum of 500lbs less than it does making it more in line with its competition. Try and make a rational argument defending that point alone.
baggs32 "I guess I just expected more improvement in the mpg dept. but haven't seen it yet save for a couple of the models."
Making us just about right back where we started with SUV's and that's been a lot of my point around here especially with the lambda's being heralded as the second coming.
No. I think the Mercedes R Class resembles that remark more. The Pacifica is fairly tasteful looking by comparison, though it is awfully bulky for the space it provides.
I don't think the lambda is a bad vehicle. If I really needed AWD and the Sienna didn't fit the bill due to ground clearance issues, and I needed to carry 8 passengers on occasion, then I might look into the lambdas more closely. The only competition I know of that can hold 8 is the Pilot, and the lambdas are more roomy if you're carrying 8.
But to me, beyond this specific need, there are a lot of other options.
8 inches of ground clearance is plenty - that's what my Outback has and I hardly ever scrape on the dirt roads. The van has 5.3" inches - that and the front overhang result in a lot of scraping.
The way people and sites like our own Edmunds categorize the Pacifica has always bugged me - there's a lot of overlap. The Freestyle usually lands in the Crossover segment first while the Pacifica lands in the Wagon segment. I thought the Pacifica belonged firmly in the Crossover camp when I first saw photos of it. It just seems a size bigger than my Outback (which I think of as a wagon; no way do I think it's a SUV :shades: ).
The nit picking here is a hoot. The seats in my car are more upright than in your car. My dad can beat your mother at arm wrestling. I must defend my choice of vehicle to all sorts of people I have never really met. Pretty crazy.
No, seriously. I have nothing against GM's large SUVs. I was just saying that i think you would do fine with a miniva. But now I understand since you've stated that you do tow. But really, if you think I give up cargo space in a minivan, I've still gotta disagree. I am basing this next stateent off a Sienna that seats 8 passengers (I think this exists, doesn't it?). If you were to carry 7 passengers, you could fill every seat except the 40% percent portion of the third row, where you could fold this into the floor and expand cargo space temendously.It does cut into passenger space, but I'd bet the increase would be more than if you were to do this in a 2007 Yukon XL, or impossible if you have a 2006 or previous.
One thing that I don't understand is your statement that filling the space behind the third row of your Yukon is safer than filling the space behind a Sienna's. You said that It would be dangerous to block the window (I think) but in that case you have to compare apples to apples, so doesn't that mean you have to block the rear window in the Yukon to get it's maximum space? Isn't that the same thing?
Making us just about right back where we started with SUV's and that's been a lot of my point around here especially with the lambda's being heralded as the second coming.
I have to admit I was smitten when all of these hit the lots too. But when you really look at them they aren't any better, or just ever so slightly better, than SUVs at anything and that's not big news IMO.
It should be determined by scale. The scale should be like that of the regular truck based SUVs. 195 inches and length and above is fullsized. 185-195 is midsized. 185 and below is compact.
Sure there are different factors like cargo and seating capacities, but this is how real SUVs do it.
I'm happy with mine and have seen as much as 33mpg on a real highway, so they are out there and are an improvement on a case by case basis.
But, and it's a big BUT, with every one of them already having introduced or are planning more hp and displacement upgrades its making the segment less and less relevent to the initial intent and holding true to the markets perceived NEED of excess.
Problem with that is that stretch models of small SUVs squeeze in to bigger categories when they still feel small and narrow inside. Good example: the last Suzuki XL7. It would be a mid-size by your criteria but it felt like a sub-compact inside in terms of width.
Another - the TrailBlazer extended has a longer wheelbase than a Tahoe yet it's still really a mid-sizer with a stretch.
Less weight is better, sure, but the mileage on the Lambdas is as good as or better than the CX7 and Veracruz and noone drives them like Corvettes so consumers won't care much beyond that.
Categorization is a funny thing. Fact is, most of these don't fit well in to any other category, hence why we added the term "crossover" in the first place.
Think about it. Crosses over from one segment to the other. That's the whole point. It's not quite a minivan, but not quite a body-on-frame SUV either. It's more than a wagon. Don't call it a tall wagon because that has a stigma. Minivans have a stigma. SUVs have a stigma with people that care about oil supply.
Voila! Crossover. Benefits from each of those segments without the stigma of any.
By its very definition, a crossover is something that doesn't fit well in to any traditional class of vehicle.
"Less weight is better, sure, but the mileage on the Lambdas is as good as or better than the CX7 and Veracruz and noone drives them like Corvettes so consumers won't care much beyond that."
than why are the different manufacturers already talking about hp increases as opposed to mpg increases. It all gets back to the "on par" conversation, no expectation leads to no result.
And heck bobw3 drives his CUV like a vette, he's always blowing the doors off someone out there so I wouldn't be so sure...LOL
thought my 2 was a glut, a FS, v70 and a range rover...how come no toy for the 3rd or are you an off road guy?
My toy is a 62 Etype - it is definately not a wagon or a CUV - can't even get into most parking lots without scraping the exhaust.
I am not really an offroad guy but have 63000km on the FS and use it in oilfield service - I've been down some nasty lease roads in all sorts of weather - I should have took some pics last time it was in the mud. I have to disagree with some of the posts on the FS ground clearance being a problem. My RR I use for the acreage - towing and stuff.
If we define a CUV as something that looks like a FreeStyle, then it is a CUV.
If we define sufficient passenger comfort as what you can find inside a FreeStyle, than the Outlooks are wasting a lot of space.
If we argue objective arguments - based on manufacturer's numbers - by calling them ridiculous, then it doesn't take long to call a Mazda 5 topped with a hard-cover cargo box an FS/Outlook beater.
The logic of your truncated quotation of my entire point is indeed wrong. I stated that if one accepted both manufacturer numbers for nearly identical headroom and wanted to explain away the 32 cu.ft. of extra interior volume behind 1st row between the FS and the Outlook in terms of a rounded shape, **then** you would have to accept that the seats on the FS are mounted 3 inches lower to the ground , which means its passengers do not seat as upright as in the Outlook.
So far, no one has been able to intelligently explain the Outlook additional volume (as if just entering both vehicles did not make it obvious,) beyond throwing FUD stating that "the numbers don't add up".
Nastacio, you are missing the point, manufacturers are cooking the numbers to suit their purposes.
You initially were seeking to set up a mid and full size spec based on volumes behind the 1st row. No one argued the lambda's have more interior space, I and anyone would be a fool to even try even without numbers.
My point was trying to get to the real difference in overall occupant interior volume would be the MOST FAIR way to get to what you were trying to get to in creating a mid and full category.
My other point was despite comparing the manufacturer numbers giving the lambda such a clear advantage over its competition I would be interested to compare the overall interior volumes because as I've said a 3" wider passenger compartment only makes up some of what appears to be a sizable difference given the provided exterior dimensions of both beig reasonably close. I never said the lambda "wasted space" I just wonder how it came to have such an advantage or if it is a case of cooking numbers or is it a combination. What you can't argue is the weight issue, but I've already made my points about that.
You then move the bar to discuss ground clearance for a CUV being another measurement of its capabilities which I called "ridiculous". As I previously stated the CUV came about for reasons other than ground clearance(buy a SUV if you need ground clearance) and to try and call one more CUV than another based on that I think IS ridiculous.
After that there was a vain effort to discuss uprightness of one vs another based on the fact the lambda sits 3" higher than a FS. The only thing you proved was the fact the lambda sits 3" higher than a FS having no bearing on upright seating or comfort.
You seem a bit all over the place with your arguments. You started this by stating the FS and outlook should be categorized mid vs. full sized and not be seen as direct competitiors. I still think you are wrong. Base your categorization of overall interior passenger volume and I think you have a leg to stand on, other than that I think they are direct competitiors and each has its advantages.
As for the mazda5, its a mini-minivan not a CUV, sliding doors and short hood give you that categorization.
I'm happy with mine and have seen as much as 33mpg on a real highway, so they are out there and are an improvement on a case by case basis.
The Freestyle with CVT was one of the exceptions I was referring to but pretty soon you won't be able to buy one anymore.
I'm hoping that when we're ready to turn our leased Explorer back in in 2 years a second gen CUV is ready and better than what is out now. I don't really factor gas mileage in during purchase time to be honest so unless a CUV I like is a standout in that area, or any other, we just might stick to a traditional SUV. I'll get the same utility, or even moreso, for a lower OTD price.
No one cares about all the excess weight. Lambdas perform good on the road and get mileage just as good as your FS. You probably jumped out of your seat at that one. But if you can post random and awesome mpg numbers for your CUV, someone else can too.
I'd be willing to bet that if you were shopping for a CUV in 2007 you would have looked closely at this offering, and if it weighed 350lbs less, you'd have one.
I think all FS disciples should be forced to drive a Lambda for a week and all Lambda disciples should have to drive a Taurus X for a week. Then we could REALLY get the competitive juices flowing around here!
I believe I started the heartburn by stating the facts I gathered in my research for a CUV purchase.
I listed manufacturer and car magazine numbers stating that an Outlook gets the same mpg as the FS with 32 cubic feet of extra volume behind 1st row on the inside.
"I'd be willing to bet that if you were shopping for a CUV in 2007 you would have looked closely at this offering, and if it weighed 350lbs less, you'd have one."
what can albook, it's nothing I haven't already debated & conceded in other posts of mine. I could well have bought one if shoping now if it was not such a porker. Maybe if GM pays attention to the forums and reviews in the press they may improve that poor statistic in the next go around earning the plaudits by leading the market as opposed to playing "over par"
"But if you can post random and awesome mpg numbers for your CUV, someone else can too"
and when once did I say anything to the contrary...post up a lambda that has seen better than 33mpg in the real world and you'll win as it is just that simple.
"I think all FS disciples should be forced to drive a Lambda for a week and all Lambda disciples should have to drive a Taurus X for a week. Then we could REALLY get the competitive juices flowing around here! "
you missed it, I already called our own PINKS grudge match CUV edition sponsored by edmunds...
I think that we can all agree that the most difinitive way to determine what vehicle has acceptble and/or the best legroom, headroom, storage space, whatever is to go out to the showrooms and actually sit in one, open the trunk, fold down the seats, etc... All this numbers-on-paper bickering is just stupid and tiring. Does an inch of hiproom on paper really matter that much without actually sitting in the seats? I think not.
Now we can get to more important things. Like arguing what CUVs look more like station wagons. :P
You actually started it by trying to suggest a mid sized vs a full sized category based on the manufacturer provided numbers behind the 1st row. It could have been pacifica vs. lambda, VC vs. Lambda, etc., it wouldn't have mattered to the argument actually.
I had no idea! That changes my entire wiew of the FS. Now i really do think it's a wagon. But there's nothing wrong with that. I think it does however explain the cargo difference between it and other CUVs.
Still wrong logic. You can't take the external dimensions and try to calculate the interior CuFt difference based on ground clearance and height. The ground clearance measurement isn't necessarily right at the center of the vehicle in the passenger compartment, nor is the height measurement.
For example in the FS, the highest point is at the very back. Who knows where they take the exterior dimensions of a vehicle.
I say that the extra CuFt is from the wider interior of the lambdas over the FS (just look at the hip and shoulder width difference, and the way the 3rd row folds in the FS, which raises up the floor by a couple of inches when it folds, plus the side of the FS angles more (it's a pretty narrow roof rack up there).
This all affects CuFt measurements but not the comfort of a passenger.
and when once did I say anything to the contrary...post up a lambda that has seen better than 33mpg in the real world and you'll win as it is just that simple.
Attention please! Will all Ford Freestyle owners who have seen 33mpg please say aye?
Wow, even with the 3.5l, the Taurus X is only rated to tow 2000 lbs max? What's up with that?
3500 lbs seem to be par for the class. That number really stood out.
Rendezvous should be replaced with Enclave.
Good point about a Mazda5 with a rooftop carrier, in fact I'm sure a Ford Focus wagon with a rooftop carrier would meet 90% of the needs of people in this thread.
"I will ignore all the subjective evaluations of my arguments, as I am not here for them."
I like that high road thing you got going there, actually everything was subjective about your arguments today as there is no mid and full size classification in place for the CUV to argue, just your opinion of one.
Your assessment of comfort was all based on subjective opinion not on numbers as all you used manufacturer numbers for was to prove the outlook had a driver that sits higher off the ground than the FS driver rather than use any numbers that were pertinent to actual interior comfort.
"I never called them CUV's, I wrote "FS/Outlook beaters"
As for the statement, I wrote "FS/Outlook beaters", THAT was the most accurrate non subjective statement you've made all day...
albook, there are other posts around here with 30, 31 & 32 that I had nothing to do with so with a little effort it can happen. How come you don't cry fowl when those came up or is it just mine you don't like???
Post up those Lambda number's, would love to see them...
Just as an FYI, CR got just 18mpg in their Freestyle, CVT and all.
For reference, that falls right between a Pilot and an Odyssey, but acceleration was slower than either.
Motorweek averaged 20mpg with theirs; Edmunds got 19mpg.
Pretty consistent numbers, 18-20mpg, less than 10% variance from one source to the other.
Might be a bit optimistic to get people expecting over 30mpg. I'm sure those are peak mileage for people that felt proud enough to brag about the figures.
If you really want gas mileage get a compact station wagon and a hard roof-top carrier.
I like that high road thing you got going there, actually everything was subjective about your arguments today as there is no mid and full size classification in place for the CUV to argue, just your opinion of one.
I'll take the high-road, but just like everybody here, I love to argue. My only rule is that I will not call anyone's argument ridiculous, even when I think that they are (not that I think yours are)
I used an objective measurement (listed interior space) to create a classification.
When those objective measurements are put to question with unsubstantiated claims that the GM is cooking up the Outlook numbers or explained by the shape of their roofs, I don't see the point of the discussion anymore.
How come? Haven't seen them. Most I remember is 28. But isn't it amazing that you just happen to be gifted with the one that hits 33mpg like it's nothing.
I have nothing against the Freestyle- I just think the styling is bland and dated, but that's not the point. It just seems that you don't like any other CUV. It's like you think yours is perfect. YOu don't even like the idea of Ford giving it a power boost. It's a nice wagon, but it's not perfect for every one. that's why there are so many other choices.
The best I have gotten was about 25 mpg on all highway driving. But, I was also hauling 7 people (ad associated luggage) in the car. My guess is it was over 1000 pounds of people and stuff. 3 People were children, so the poundage goes down versus 7 adults. Then again, one of the people (neither myself or my wife) is morbidly obese...
I usually get about 17-18 mpg in typical driving conditions. Those are mostly city miles. Not great, but on par with most minivans and better than other SUVs.
"I used an objective measurement (listed interior space) to create a classification."
you actually kept moving the bar, first it was volume based, next it was the "ridiculous"(just because I can) ground clearance debate to define a CUV not mid vs. full, with the finale being the unsubstantiated "sits more upright therefore it must be more comfortable" argument that came with no numbers to support it.
Arguing is one thing, supporting your point seems to be another.
If you'll note all I asked was that you refine your volume based categorization method to allow a clearer and potentially fairer categorization of numbers. This way when you analyze overall interior volume of one vs. another there is some possibility of getting an apples to apples comparison as opposed to what one manuf. use to measure vs. another.
I didn't think that was unreasonable or not in the spirit of what you were trying to accomplish.
Comments
Category wise, They have to be in the same one. The MB GL is in the same category as the Escalade, yet escalade has over 20 more cubic ft of cargo space. But like the FS vs a Lambda, the seating arrangements and sizes are the same.
I have to admit who ever wrote that doesn't really know the FS. It has 8 in of ground clearance. Some one tell me if I'm wrong about that.
It's all excuses based on weight issues alone, but that's not new news to anyone around here to hear that from me.
Take that weight off and I would have happily conceded the fact that gm did their homework and put out a good product. Until they do that I think you are all being snowed. Read the reviews and they call them ponderous and marginal handlers, It's not just me folks...
excess weight = bad
Someone tell me that it would NOT be a BETTER vehicle if it weighed a minimum of 500lbs less than it does making it more in line with its competition. Try and make a rational argument defending that point alone.
baggs32
"I guess I just expected more improvement in the mpg dept. but haven't seen it yet save for a couple of the models."
Making us just about right back where we started with SUV's and that's been a lot of my point around here especially with the lambda's being heralded as the second coming.
But to me, beyond this specific need, there are a lot of other options.
The way people and sites like our own Edmunds categorize the Pacifica has always bugged me - there's a lot of overlap. The Freestyle usually lands in the Crossover segment first while the Pacifica lands in the Wagon segment. I thought the Pacifica belonged firmly in the Crossover camp when I first saw photos of it. It just seems a size bigger than my Outback (which I think of as a wagon; no way do I think it's a SUV :shades: ).
One thing that I don't understand is your statement that filling the space behind the third row of your Yukon is safer than filling the space behind a Sienna's. You said that It would be dangerous to block the window (I think) but in that case you have to compare apples to apples, so doesn't that mean you have to block the rear window in the Yukon to get it's maximum space? Isn't that the same thing?
I have to admit I was smitten when all of these hit the lots too. But when you really look at them they aren't any better, or just ever so slightly better, than SUVs at anything and that's not big news IMO.
It should be determined by scale. The scale should be like that of the regular truck based SUVs. 195 inches and length and above is fullsized. 185-195 is midsized. 185 and below is compact.
Sure there are different factors like cargo and seating capacities, but this is how real SUVs do it.
But, and it's a big BUT, with every one of them already having introduced or are planning more hp and displacement upgrades its making the segment less and less relevent to the initial intent and holding true to the markets perceived NEED of excess.
So my advice, shop wisely...
2 row = mid sized
and
3 row = full sized
Another - the TrailBlazer extended has a longer wheelbase than a Tahoe yet it's still really a mid-sizer with a stretch.
Less weight is better, sure, but the mileage on the Lambdas is as good as or better than the CX7 and Veracruz and noone drives them like Corvettes so consumers won't care much beyond that.
Categorization is a funny thing. Fact is, most of these don't fit well in to any other category, hence why we added the term "crossover" in the first place.
Think about it. Crosses over from one segment to the other. That's the whole point. It's not quite a minivan, but not quite a body-on-frame SUV either. It's more than a wagon. Don't call it a tall wagon because that has a stigma. Minivans have a stigma. SUVs have a stigma with people that care about oil supply.
Voila! Crossover. Benefits from each of those segments without the stigma of any.
By its very definition, a crossover is something that doesn't fit well in to any traditional class of vehicle.
than why are the different manufacturers already talking about hp increases as opposed to mpg increases. It all gets back to the "on par" conversation, no expectation leads to no result.
And heck bobw3 drives his CUV like a vette, he's always blowing the doors off someone out there so I wouldn't be so sure...LOL
None of these feel slow when empty, but I imagine with 7 people and cargo and a trailer attached many would.
My toy is a 62 Etype - it is definately not a wagon or a CUV - can't even get into most parking lots without scraping the exhaust.
I am not really an offroad guy but have 63000km on the FS and use it in oilfield service - I've been down some nasty lease roads in all sorts of weather - I should have took some pics last time it was in the mud. I have to disagree with some of the posts on the FS ground clearance being a problem. My RR I use for the acreage - towing and stuff.
If we define sufficient passenger comfort as what you can find inside a FreeStyle, than the Outlooks are wasting a lot of space.
If we argue objective arguments - based on manufacturer's numbers - by calling them ridiculous, then it doesn't take long to call a Mazda 5 topped with a hard-cover cargo box an FS/Outlook beater.
Would you take the Ford's word for it? Look it up under "DIMENSIONS, WEIGHTS, CAPACITIES"
http://www.fordvehicles.com/crossovers/TaurusX/compare/details/?vehicles=22015|2- 0910|19686|22426
I gotta give it to the FS fans, they will argue you all the way to the manufacturer's spec sheets.
The logic of your truncated quotation of my entire point is indeed wrong. I stated that if one accepted both manufacturer numbers for nearly identical headroom and wanted to explain away the 32 cu.ft. of extra interior volume behind 1st row between the FS and the Outlook in terms of a rounded shape, **then** you would have to accept that the seats on the FS are mounted 3 inches lower to the ground , which means its passengers do not seat as upright as in the Outlook.
So far, no one has been able to intelligently explain the Outlook additional volume (as if just entering both vehicles did not make it obvious,) beyond throwing FUD stating that "the numbers don't add up".
You initially were seeking to set up a mid and full size spec based on volumes behind the 1st row. No one argued the lambda's have more interior space, I and anyone would be a fool to even try even without numbers.
My point was trying to get to the real difference in overall occupant interior volume would be the MOST FAIR way to get to what you were trying to get to in creating a mid and full category.
My other point was despite comparing the manufacturer numbers giving the lambda such a clear advantage over its competition I would be interested to compare the overall interior volumes because as I've said a 3" wider passenger compartment only makes up some of what appears to be a sizable difference given the provided exterior dimensions of both beig reasonably close. I never said the lambda "wasted space" I just wonder how it came to have such an advantage or if it is a case of cooking numbers or is it a combination. What you can't argue is the weight issue, but I've already made my points about that.
You then move the bar to discuss ground clearance for a CUV being another measurement of its capabilities which I called "ridiculous". As I previously stated the CUV came about for reasons other than ground clearance(buy a SUV if you need ground clearance) and to try and call one more CUV than another based on that I think IS ridiculous.
After that there was a vain effort to discuss uprightness of one vs another based on the fact the lambda sits 3" higher than a FS. The only thing you proved was the fact the lambda sits 3" higher than a FS having no bearing on upright seating or comfort.
You seem a bit all over the place with your arguments. You started this by stating the FS and outlook should be categorized mid vs. full sized and not be seen as direct competitiors. I still think you are wrong. Base your categorization of overall interior passenger volume and I think you have a leg to stand on, other than that I think they are direct competitiors and each has its advantages.
As for the mazda5, its a mini-minivan not a CUV, sliding doors and short hood give you that categorization.
The Freestyle with CVT was one of the exceptions I was referring to but pretty soon you won't be able to buy one anymore.
I'm hoping that when we're ready to turn our leased Explorer back in in 2 years a second gen CUV is ready and better than what is out now. I don't really factor gas mileage in during purchase time to be honest so unless a CUV I like is a standout in that area, or any other, we just might stick to a traditional SUV. I'll get the same utility, or even moreso, for a lower OTD price.
I'd be willing to bet that if you were shopping for a CUV in 2007 you would have looked closely at this offering, and if it weighed 350lbs less, you'd have one.
UH OH-I just opened up an ugly can of worms.
I listed manufacturer and car magazine numbers stating that an Outlook gets the same mpg as the FS with 32 cubic feet of extra volume behind 1st row on the inside.
the reviews sure do...
"I'd be willing to bet that if you were shopping for a CUV in 2007 you would have looked closely at this offering, and if it weighed 350lbs less, you'd have one."
what can albook, it's nothing I haven't already debated & conceded in other posts of mine. I could well have bought one if shoping now if it was not such a porker. Maybe if GM pays attention to the forums and reviews in the press they may improve that poor statistic in the next go around earning the plaudits by leading the market as opposed to playing "over par"
"But if you can post random and awesome mpg numbers for your CUV, someone else can too"
and when once did I say anything to the contrary...post up a lambda that has seen better than 33mpg in the real world and you'll win as it is just that simple.
you missed it, I already called our own PINKS grudge match CUV edition sponsored by edmunds...
Now we can get to more important things. Like arguing what CUVs look more like station wagons.
I can only list manufacturer numbers and filter out FUD like manufacturers are cooking the numbers to suit their purposes.
As for the mazda5, its a mini-minivan not a CUV, sliding doors and short hood give you that categorization.
I never called them CUV's, I wrote "FS/Outlook beaters".
I had no idea! That changes my entire wiew of the FS. Now i really do think it's a wagon. But there's nothing wrong with that. I think it does however explain the cargo difference between it and other CUVs.
You can't take the external dimensions and try to calculate the interior CuFt difference based on ground clearance and height. The ground clearance measurement isn't necessarily right at the center of the vehicle in the passenger compartment, nor is the height measurement.
For example in the FS, the highest point is at the very back. Who knows where they take the exterior dimensions of a vehicle.
I say that the extra CuFt is from the wider interior of the lambdas over the FS (just look at the hip and shoulder width difference, and the way the 3rd row folds in the FS, which raises up the floor by a couple of inches when it folds, plus the side of the FS angles more (it's a pretty narrow roof rack up there).
This all affects CuFt measurements but not the comfort of a passenger.
Radical or what? Sounds like the auto industry has done someone wrong!
Attention please! Will all Ford Freestyle owners who have seen 33mpg please say aye?
Thanks!
2 row = mid sized
and
3 row = full sized
The large Chrysler Pacifica can be had with two rows.
In the SUV column, so can the Tahoe.
3500 lbs seem to be par for the class. That number really stood out.
Rendezvous should be replaced with Enclave.
Good point about a Mazda5 with a rooftop carrier, in fact I'm sure a Ford Focus wagon with a rooftop carrier would meet 90% of the needs of people in this thread.
I like that high road thing you got going there, actually everything was subjective about your arguments today as there is no mid and full size classification in place for the CUV to argue, just your opinion of one.
Your assessment of comfort was all based on subjective opinion not on numbers as all you used manufacturer numbers for was to prove the outlook had a driver that sits higher off the ground than the FS driver rather than use any numbers that were pertinent to actual interior comfort.
"I never called them CUV's, I wrote "FS/Outlook beaters"
As for the statement, I wrote "FS/Outlook beaters", THAT was the most accurrate non subjective statement you've made all day...
See you at our PINKS taping...
Post up those Lambda number's, would love to see them...
For reference, that falls right between a Pilot and an Odyssey, but acceleration was slower than either.
Motorweek averaged 20mpg with theirs; Edmunds got 19mpg.
Pretty consistent numbers, 18-20mpg, less than 10% variance from one source to the other.
Might be a bit optimistic to get people expecting over 30mpg. I'm sure those are peak mileage for people that felt proud enough to brag about the figures.
If you really want gas mileage get a compact station wagon and a hard roof-top carrier.
I'll take the high-road, but just like everybody here, I love to argue.
I used an objective measurement (listed interior space) to create a classification.
When those objective measurements are put to question with unsubstantiated claims that the GM is cooking up the Outlook numbers or explained by the shape of their roofs, I don't see the point of the discussion anymore.
Ford Freestyle Real World MPG
Buick Enclave Real World MPG
Saturn Outlook Real World MPG
You get the idea - most makes and models have a mpg discussion.
I have nothing against the Freestyle- I just think the styling is bland and dated, but that's not the point. It just seems that you don't like any other CUV. It's like you think yours is perfect. YOu don't even like the idea of Ford giving it a power boost. It's a nice wagon, but it's not perfect for every one. that's why there are so many other choices.
I usually get about 17-18 mpg in typical driving conditions. Those are mostly city miles. Not great, but on par with most minivans and better than other SUVs.
you actually kept moving the bar, first it was volume based, next it was the "ridiculous"(just because I can) ground clearance debate to define a CUV not mid vs. full, with the finale being the unsubstantiated "sits more upright therefore it must be more comfortable" argument that came with no numbers to support it.
Arguing is one thing, supporting your point seems to be another.
If you'll note all I asked was that you refine your volume based categorization method to allow a clearer and potentially fairer categorization of numbers. This way when you analyze overall interior volume of one vs. another there is some possibility of getting an apples to apples comparison as opposed to what one manuf. use to measure vs. another.
I didn't think that was unreasonable or not in the spirit of what you were trying to accomplish.
Roof carriers cut down on gas mileage, too.