Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I don't remember the original poster mentioning the FS/T-reX once in their post. You just can't seem to not take a cheap shot at the Ford despite not being correct with the fact the T-reX performed better than the enclave as has been posted in the jd powers numbers(facts, just the facts).
Thanks for posting up the interior volume numbers, they made my point for me in our discussion about overall interior volume and your desire to set up mid and full size class system as the 2 were close overall so your point seemed moot. I'm still not sure how GM got 32cuft more behind the front row with only an 8cuft overall gain on the FS though. Something still smells funny to me about how gm is coming to their published numbers by row. And again, that's not to say they are not bigger, I'm just still a little unsure of where that huge difference actually is.
As for performing better let's see...
T-reX FWD 3959 / 263 = 15.0 lbs/hp
torque 249 = 15.8 lbs/lbs tq.
enclave fwd 4780 / 275 = 17.3 lbs/hp
torque 251 = 19.0 lbs/lbs tq.
I think it's going to perform a whole lot better, combine that with 5 star ratings and it being a top pick in the rear crash results that have been posted and I think you have a fine alternative to the enclave for a bunch less money(why hasn't gm submitted the triplets for testing, hmmmm.). Yes you give up a little space(8 cuft) but your buy in is going to be less as will your curb weight(8 cuft advantage + 800lbs more to schlep = each one of those extra cubic foot of space weighs 100lbs, that's a lot extra to be hauling around).
As for your design analysis, that's your opinion... the OP can come to their own conclusions given the facts.
Anyway, just saying it's a lot more than the name Honda that sells their vehicles. It's the quality of the interior, layout of the controls, utilization of space, long-term reliability, steering/handling, and the list goes on.
American manufacturers keep trying to sell their vehicles based on the "bigger is better" premise and "more HP is better". It hasn't worked for them in the past, and if they keep trying to do it with their CUVs, they're going to find themselves on the bottom of the pile yet again.
The interiors look well put together, but cheap. They are all covered in unatractive plastic- even their famed Odyssey.
As for the Pilot being better than any other CUV on this forum, well, i doubt it. There may be new gadgets, but the vehicle is a year newer than all others dicussed on this forum. I would by the lambdas, the CX9 or the Taurus X before the Pilot (unless it's considerably bigger, whch it's rumored not to be). In my mind, they hold the same respect as the Pilot. And think of how the current Pilot is trampled by these new offerings.
When people start waking up and seeing that Honda- and Toyota aren't truely on top in quality, then the waves of sales will begin to change. Look at all the stories on this forum of people replacing MDX's with Acadias- people who would have never driven a GM product getting one. And bigger isn't always better, but do you want your kids cramped up in that small third row seat? HOw much could 5 inches of length really hurt?
What point is there to be made? It's just numbers- plan and simple. And there you go agian with "GM cooks there numbers- it's all a conspiracy!" There is nothing fishy. The FS and Acadia are about the same length- so passenger sapce isn't that far off. But because of hieght, and GM's smart engineering (I know you just turned bright red) they were able to take the dimensions they had and produce a lot more cargo space.
The Taurus X will do a good deal better than it's predecessor, but I think the Lambdas will still do better as-where the TX is just a long wagon with a big third row, they are a small step down from a minivan- at least the smallest in this comparison. No one will really pay attention to weight, but if those who do continue to complain, GM will tack on another 25-30 hp/ lbs of torque. That will really split some hairs.
Ok, I'll bite...
Not that I'm a huge Honda fan, but I can't remember a single recent Honda TV commercial that brags about their engine's horsepower/torque.
Nissan? Now, that's a different story, and I concur with you, there. Nearly every V6/V8 model from Nissan/Infiniti seems to have some advertising which emphasizes their horsepower. But I think it makes sense for them to do so. They need to do something to stand out from Honda and Toyota (as well as BMW/Lexus, for the Infiniti line).
Toyota? Yes, with their Tundra, but not so much with their other vehicles, imo.
I assume you meant the Enclave?
I really wanted to like the Enclave, but I'm one of the few who do not like the exterior styling. The CX model I saw up close had more chrome than the interior of a Carnival cruise ship. In fact, it had almost as much chrome as a Lincoln Navigator! :surprise:
Then we must not live in the same area. But if you check out their website, you'll find that Honda brags about as much as anyone about horsepower and performance.
2. $41k with NAV - a bit steep for a SUV with no 3rd row, when you compare it to the competition. In that case, might as well spend a couple grand more and get a MDX.
3. I don't like the front end grille, and I don't like the tailights (I know it's subjective and all)
Other than that, it gets better reviews than the Ford Edge.
Wow. Since we don't tend to drive our cars into the ground, I would be concerned about resale value! :surprise:
They just recently changed to net hp.
And be prepared to spend a couple thousand more on gasoline too. The Acura MDX requires premium unleaded, which is going for about 40 cents more a gallon in my area. The Lincoln also gets appreciably better mileage than the Acura. And does it on regular unleaded.
And with the MDX, don't be fooled into thinking you can get by with 87 octane, if the engine is designed similar to the previous generation MDX. We had purchased a new MDX late in 2000, when they were first introduced. When it was about two years old, I tried filling up with mid-level 89 octane a few times. That engine clearly complained and knocked a few times, typically when accelerating from a stop before the engine warmed up. When I switched back to 91 octane, I never heard any complaints again.
You cannot label other people incorrect if you don't read what they write. I wrote that the *Outlook* fared the same as the FS, which was the best approximation to the Taurus X. There are no numbers for the Enclave as it came out after the study and its quieter interior is likely to earn it better ratings than its siblings.
Whether you keep on harping on the lambda's weight, or hellbent on drag racing an Outlook with an FS, that seems a pointless discussion as high performance is not really what people expect from these vehicles. You should know that better than many in this thread as you seem to be happy with the performance of your FS.
For about the same mileage, the lambda's will offer more passenger space and significantly more cargo space. Objectively, the longer wheelbase and the clever 2nd row folding mechanism provide much better access to the 3rd row.
I hope they will respect the suppliers price for qualifying people.
I never said anything about Honda advertisement, nor GM or Ford advertisements. I was talking about what sells a particular car. Why I think people actually buy them and buy another after selling their previous one. Advertisement doesn't sell a car. It may get people to look at them, but the other factors I mentioned in my previous post are what makes companies like Toyota and Honda do well.
Unless you think that's because everyone buying a Honda or Toyota are swayed by perception of their quality? If so, then a logical discussion is as likely as a discussion with the other conspiracy theory wackos!
Regardless of advertising, what makes GM and Ford vehicles unique are generally their size and hp and in these categories, vehicles like the Pilot or Highlander may lose slightly. But maybe the folks who buy a Highlander or next generation Pilot over a lambda or FS are more interested in other aspects of the car.
Of course there are specific individuals (many of them in this forum) who will say Honda/Toyota make cheap cars that feel like crap inside compared to GM or Buick, but if the majority of the population felt that way, we'd be reading about new GM and Ford factories opening up and not closing. But then again I'm sure some conspiracty theory nut will give some off-the-wall explanation for that too!
Anyway, I'm just saying that if you don't need to buy right away, then you might want to wait for the Pilot to come out to have something else to compare it against. BTW...I have a Ford and Honda in my garage and I bought each for different reasons.
How's Buick's reliability versus Lexus or Acura, since I though Buick was supposed to be in competition with Lexus/Acura vs Honda/Toyota? And comparing a Buick to a Hyundai?? I hope for an extra $10-$15K you're getting something!
Not sure the study reflects on current models when they are produced in different factories. At any rate, I was surprised to see Mazda, Volvo, MB, and Mini so low in the charts.
Rover almost took the reverse top honors from Kia at the bottom of the pile.
They just recently changed to net hp.
That's not quite true.
First off, all automakers were held to the same standard. Some just calculated HP with the accessories disconnected.
SAE HP measure HP with all the accessory belts in place. For example some Toyota V6 engines dropped from 210hp to 190 SAE HP. Hondas from 255hp to 240 SAE HP or so.
This is still not net HP, though. Net HP would be measured at the wheels, and there would be far more drivetrain loss, and much lower numbers (for all cars).
The good thing is that the industry did standardize on SAE HP as of last year.
Funny thing is Toyota responded quickly and launched a new V6 that makes 266 or more SAE HP and promptly made Ward's 10 Best Engines list. The MDX got a bigger V6 as well.
T-reX FWD 3959 / 263 = 15.0 lbs/hp
torque 249 = 15.8 lbs/lbs tq.
enclave fwd 4780 / 275 = 17.3 lbs/hp
torque 251 = 19.0 lbs/lbs tq.
I think it's going to perform a whole lot better, combine that with 5 star ratings and it being a top pick in the rear crash results ...
Sorry, but you are mis-using your source.
IIHS states their results are only comparable for vehicles in the same class and that weight within 400 lbs of each other.
In one paragraph, you brag about how the FS weighs 821 lbs less than the Enclave, and in the very next paragraph you brag about the IIHS crash test results.
They cannot be compared! IIHS says so specifically. Not only that, the weight differnce which you pointed out yourself is more than DOUBLE the threshold allowed for results to be compared directly.
You can't do that.
Freestyle performs well within its weight class, but you can't compare it to the Enclave directly.
I then went to state that performance improvement COMBINED with the T-reX's 5 star crash rating and it being a top pick in the rear crash testing make it a better option to the enclave that nastacio keeps trying to point out it might not given any small opportunity. The irony to that is the OP he was responded to made no mention of the T-reX.
So I wasn't mis-using the source as I was not comparing with them directly with iihs results as you think.
What you can compare though is star ratings and the fact one was rear crash tested and performed well and one was not submitted for testing for unknown reasons and that is what I was pointing out. They both have 5 stars for what they both were respectively tested for so that is a wash which I was not disputing.
Thanks for the heads up on the testing procedures though as I was unaware of those particulars...
Hyundai has come a long way in quality, but most people still don't think of them as mid to upper crust for vehicles. I remember when Datsun (Nissan), Toyota and Honda came in and gradually built up. Much like the pattern Hyundai has followed.
My only comments on the Freestyle...not bad and maybe a value leader for pricing what you get. BUT it looks boring and reminds me of a chopped/stretched Explorer and I am not an Explorer fan. The masses seem to have passed over it to buy other vehicles. Hey, I can sympathize... I love my '00 Trooper but not that many other folks bought them, so it was not a best seller. Of all the vehicles on the market I would probably go for an Outlook or Acadia if I wanted more than 5 passenger seating.
Technically, the numbers are for "Rear crash protection/head restraint ratings"
As pointed out in this thread, the vehicle mass does play a role in protecting the occupants because a heavier vehicle will absorb more of the impact than a lighter vehicle. In that sense, the lambda's will be safer (at the expense of the safety of other drivers, that is true.)
Vehicle design also plays a large role in impact absorption, but without data for a comparison there is not much point in debating it.
Another point that may have been lost in the discussion is that the Lambda's have not been rated yet.
According to the IIHS website:
We don't have crash test results for vehicles that aren't listed in the menus above, and we don't release information in advance about individual vehicles or categories of vehicles we plan to test.
That is not to say IIHS may test them later and find poor results.
I don't know if I am encouraging the behavior by responding, but the OP wrote:
Who can calm my fears about GM or offer a better alternative for my family?
Since he didn't list the Taurus X nor the Enclave, I thought it would be fair to bring both into the discussion.
Most people discard the Enclave because they see it as expensive (I did too in recent past) without realizing that a similarly equipped Acadia or Outlook will cost about the same.
By the same token, a lot people discard the Taurus X as being smaller, so that I thought worth mentioning that it was similarly sized.
Maybe you got offended because I mentioned I liked the Enclave design better, which was somewhat unnecessary, but I made it clear that it was my opinion.
No one got on your case when you wrote "I contend that is a design that will age well" for the FS (and I didn't call that ridiculous).
Unless you meant it will age relatively less, with which I would agree.
You directly compare the curb weight, HP, and power-to-weight in one breath, and then talk about safety in the other, and you're not comparing? Okey-dokey, if you say so.
My point is, we can't talk about the crash test results in the same context. The Freestyle scores well for crossovers in the 3800-4200 weight class.
The Lambdas have scored well so far in a much higher weight class, and we don't have results for the head rests. Unlike you I don't see a reason to pre-judge what hasn't been tested yet.
on road performance of the T-reX was going to be better
Accident avoidance manuever results:
Ford Freestyle, January 2006: 47.0 mph
Saturn Outlook, current issue: 50.0 mph
The Saturn actually managed a rather substantial advantage in this objective measure of manueverability.
Fact is, you're hyper-critical of the Lambdas, particularly their mass, yet mass does add safety, and you talk about safety in every other breath.
Then you defend that position by saying the Lamdbas are cumbersome, overweight, and couldn't avoid an accident to save their lives yet they manage an avoidance manuever at a substantially higher speed than the Freestyle does in the same test.
I find your positions rather inconsistent.
Show us poor crash test results for the Lambdas. Show us objective measures to prove your theory that the Freestyle or Taurus X "perform a whole lot better".
3mph slower is not a whole lot better. It might be the difference between being able to avoid an obstacle and not completing the maneuver at all.
All of the above beat the Freestyle by a wide margin in the accident avoidance manuever.
These are not my opinions, they are objective measurements. Don't shoot the messenger.
I have bought only Toyotas and Hondas before my current Ford. While the FS has been good over all, it does not compare with the quality of the Honda brand. Plus, Honda tends to stand behind their product. For example, the Gen 2 CR-Vs are blowing A/C Compressors at the moment - evidently a batch of bad components. Honda America is replacing them at low or zero cost to the customer. Honda believes in quality in a way that the American auto firms cannot comprehend.
I would consider another Ford - the FS is unlike any Ford I've ever driven - but it isn't a Honda.
I also think that the plastic in the Honda lines appear cheap because plastic that will last tends to look that way. My 2003 CR-V interior would scratch pretty easily, but I don't expect it would have cracked over time like cheaper plastics.
What about resale value for those folks only keeping their vehicles for a few years. Just another thing to put into the equation of choices...What will that $40K Buick get you as a trade-in in 3 years versus a $40K Acura?
I just did,
T-reX FWD 3959 / 263 = 15.0 lbs/hp
torque 249 = 15.8 lbs/lbs tq.
enclave fwd 4780 / 275 = 17.3 lbs/hp
torque 251 = 19.0 lbs/lbs tq.
that's objective proof the T-reX is going to perform better than a lambda in a straight line.
"Accident avoidance manuever results:
Ford Freestyle, January 2006: 47.0 mph
Saturn Outlook, current issue: 50.0 mph"
We've moved on to the T-reX in this discussion and you bring up the 06 FS for your point. Now that the T-reX has ESP standard I suspect that number will improve so let's keep the conversation consistent at least and available when the T-reX has a number to post.
I never said the lambda's performed poorly during crash testing. I do not understand why they have not been rear crash tested yet, period. I'd think GM would want their family hauler evaluated completely. They may come out fine, they may not.
They are heavy to thier detriment, period. As I have repeatedly pointed out, bring them down to a 4200lb weight more in line with its competition and you will have a much better vehicle. It will accelerate better, corner better and return better fuel economy. You cannot dispute any of those points. Accepting "on par" seems the mantra around here, WHY? How come NO one wants to agree to that point, I'd really like to know that answer.
To have a 8 cuft advantage over a close competitior at a weight penalty of 800lbs is POOR DESIGN regardless of how fast it is, how much it costs, blah, blah, blah. Rationalize to me HOW to GOOD EFFECT that the lambdas use that much weight. They have to provide a larger engine to move it, they have to provide larger tires to manage its increased rolling resistence, all at the expense of mpg which is part of why CUV's are bought for.
Compare to the minivan crowd and the results are even more ridiculous as the mini's pack more space in less weight. Compare it to a full sized 2wd yukon and it only gets 2mpg better and the yukon is 22in longer and weighs 1000lbs more.
What has GM proved?
Then you'll use the classic, well they already get the best CUV mileage. I never argued that, my point is in the days of $3+ gal gas every mpg helps because gas is not going to get any cheaper why not make it even better to start? Nothings perfect, I know, I know as life is compromise. The point is GM missed the boat completely in the weight department for it's CUV competitior with only an incremetal space increase than its competition which has now been flushed out. The end does not justify the means.
For those concerned about profit margin, they would have been higher because there is 800lbs more "stuff" to put in each and every lambda and that "stuff" costs money. Engineer it out at a reduced cost at the beginning of the process and you have the opportunity to either sell at a reduced cost or make a higher profit if the market will bear.
My point is not inconsistent. The Lambda's ARE overweight to NO GOOD EFFECT, they would be much better vehicles if they had managed that aspect much better. They would also be safer to those around them as nastacio pointed out and at no cost to their occupants, so what's wrong with that.
If they weren't so out of line in the 3 row CUV crowd I'd say to all of you GM won the war based on their design and engineering talents and deserve the accolades for a job well done. At this point they only did part of the job, the easier one making the uncritical, undemanding, more, more, more buying public happy, reasonably well. That just doesn't do it for me nor should it you but that's just MHO.
A couple of thousands a year, or in the lifetime of the vehicle? Premium gas is 20 cents more/gallon where I live, you probably pay $4 more per fillup. If you do this every week, it only adds up to about $200 more per year.
You're getting ripped off if you're paying 40 cents more for premium gas. Nationwide, the average difference between regular and premium is about 20 cents.
You're getting ripped off if you're paying 40 cents more for premium gas. Nationwide, the average difference between regular and premium is about 20 cents."
Yeah, I agree that it really isn't that much, but somehow that "head" knowledge doesn't filter down to the pocket book. I still won't buy a vehicle that requires premium fuel. When I had a vehicle that used either (2002 Odyssey), I chose to run regular fuel. But that choice was based on the fact that the MPG gain for Premium did not offset the extra cost.
My Odyssey adjusted shift points based on the fuel type, and it had better power and MPG with premium. The effective cost was probably about 20 cents (Premium costs about 40 cents more per gallon here in LA), but I just didn't want to pay the difference. Premium yielded about 1.5 - 2 MPG better than regular fuel.
So before anyone starts quoting what sort of highway MPG they're getting on flat highways cruising at 65mph, also let us know what your MPG for day-to-day non-pure-highway driving. Then you might see more the effect of the added weight.
BTW...Our FS FWD gets consistenly just over 20MPG for our normal around-town driving. On highway trips, it will get in the mid to upper 20s MPG, and even hit 30MPG on a few hundred mile stretch of 65mph.
As far as using premium gas...what CUV needs it? Also, if you drive 15,000 miles per year and get 20mpg, that's 740gal of gas, x $.20/gal extra for premium = $150 per year or about $0.41/day. For some folks, that's might not be too much to pay.
The Taurus X is lighter so we'll have to wait and see, but I seriously doubt we'll see it "perform a whole lot better". That'll probably depend on gearing, which you forgot to mention.
T-reX has ESP standard I suspect that number will improve
I don't agree with that assumption at all. Remember, stability control applies the brakes, it actually reduces the speed. It's often commented in these tests that the speeds are limited by such systems. ESP will not make it faster, just as ABS doesn't shortern stopping distances. It will help maintain control at the same (or lower) speeds, though.
If the Taurus X posts up better numbers, it will be due to better tires or something else, not ESP.
They are heavy to thier [sic] detriment, period
I disagree, they feel rock solid. This comes at a cost, sure, but I disagree with the "period" part. You are completely ignoring the priorities others may have. Owners feel safer in a bank vault than they do in a tin can.
I'm not saying any vehicle here is a tin can, but the Outlook does feel vault-solid.
The Lambda's ARE overweight to NO GOOD EFFECT
Again, some people value a feel of solidity more than you. Plus, lighter materials often cost more.
I wrote a review on the Outlook back in January, and here are some things I commented about it:
It's very sturdy, substantial.
HUGE space inside, wow.
It drives big, but well. Smooth ride
All of those comments are GOOD EFFECTS related to the high mass of the Outlook.
And once again, you'e ignoring the fact that more mass is an advantage to the Outlook in a multi-vehicle crash. You try to spin it as a disadvantage, even, which only shows your personal preference for lighter cars.
Just realize that others may have different preferences than you!
You know what's funny? I generally prefer lighter cars, but at least I am willing to acknowledge that extra mass gives you more safety in a multi-vehicle crash, sheesh.
We've moved on to the T-reX in this discussion and you bring up the 06 FS for your point
You totally dodged that one.
You guys have been tooting the Freestyle's horn for years now yet you totally dodged the fact that in an accident avoidance manuever it simply performed very poorly.
I think that got you so upset you started yelling at me (all caps), so I'm sorry about that. :P
So I'll ask it now, why does the ultra-light, featherweight, under 4000 lb Freestyle perform so poorly in accident avoidance, arguably the highest priority to someone like you who talks about manueverability and safey in every other paragraph.
The result is a bit embarassing, given all the behemoths in this class do so much better.
You wanna show us your source for this?
I looked up accident avoidance specifically because that is the topic we are discussing.
Remember, people were making the point that lighter vehicles were generally more maneuverable and more likely to be able to avoid the accident in the first place.
So, I went and looked it up. Imagine my surprise!
If you read all the pro-Freestyle posts in here you would think the Freebie could perform the maneuver at the speed of light.
I'm not quite sure what that means. Newton tells us that the change in momentum (mass times velocity) of two colliding vehicles are equal and opposite. Perhaps you meant to say that the change in speed of the heavier vehicle will be less.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Edge weighs more than the T-reX
"You know what's funny? I generally prefer lighter cars, but at least I am willing to acknowledge that extra mass gives you more safety in a multi-vehicle crash, sheesh."
NOT once have I said it didn't but to have us on a little more fair footing would be to the benefit of all as I pointed out. Just because you bought the biggest doesn't mean you should have the opportunity to provide undue damage for someone who chose not to buy the biggest or couldn't afford it.
It just sets up a different kind of class system yet again.
I know, I know, we all have choices...
"Again, some people value a feel of solidity more than you. Plus, lighter materials often cost more."
weight and perception of "safer" are not always an indicator of crash worthiness. It just gets back to design and where you pick you battles, you can engineer solid feeling and lighter weight.
And the higher light weight material cost could be offset by the reduction of having to provide 800lbs more of "stuff" so that doesn't fly and not to mention more freely adopting lighter materials will bring cost down with the economy of scale.
People get real jumpy about Consumer Reports but their Ford Explorer and Explorer Sport were both significantly quicker through the accident avoidance manuever than the Freestyle was. I see no reason for them to lie about the FS and not the others.
My theory is that they started with the very solid Volvo P2 platform and worked very hard to lighten the weight of the suspension components, and this caused a substantial drop in accident avoidance capability.
Just kidding about that last part, but you gotta admit, that was funny.
I changed the thread title and hopefully we can linger on this topic for the next, oh, 2 years or so.
Please read all the posts. If you scan among last night's entries, you'll see someone mentioned the MDX requires premium fuel. Although these are smaller 5-seater models not usually discussed here, the Mazda CX-7 and Acura RDX also require premium. As far as I know, all European models also require premium fuel.
Somebody reported their local stations charge 40 cents more per gallon for premium than regular. Around here, the stations had always charged about 20 cents more per gallon for premium, but this summer that average has changed to about 24 cents/gallon. Some stations nearby now charge as much as 30 cents/gallon more.