Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Crossover SUV Comparison

1…5152545657…142

Comments

  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    It's not that easy. Some people only need a small third row. So they get the likes of the CX or MDX. Some only need little cargo space, so they go for the FS. Some don't care about how much their CUV weighs, as long as it gets good gas mileage, so they get a lambda. How do you want it? Ford could've built the Flex to be a sporty athletic CUV, but why not leave that for MAzda and go for something different.
  • volkovvolkov Member Posts: 1,306
    Couldn't agree more. Other than the extremes of butt-ugly like the Aztek, AMC Gremlin to stunning and timeless like a 68 Mustang or Lambo Countach I don't much care how my car looks. I know I am the minority there. My wife has vetoed more than one vehicle on looks alone.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Of course the spouse veto will make all of this discussion moot ;)
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    Some people only need a small third row. So they get the likes of the CX or MDX. Some only need little cargo space, so they go for the FS. Some don't care about how much their CUV weighs, as long as it gets good gas mileage, so they get a lambda.

    Are you arguing that people decide on their purchases based on not caring for their flaws (small 3rd row, little space, excess weight) ?

    Next thing we will be saying that people buy a Ferrari because they don't care about gas prices (or the price of anything for that matter.)

    And "thanks" for mentioning little cargo space for the FS, because now we will never hear the end of it.
  • Karen_SKaren_S Member Posts: 5,092
    A reporter is hoping to talk with consumers who have participated in Saturn’s “Side-by-Side-by-Side” test drive program.

    Please respond to jfallon@edmunds.com before 4pm Eastern on Friday, August 3 with your daytime contact information and a few words about your experience.
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    You are proponents in the same zealous regard

    Uh...no.
  • 99zoomr99zoomr Member Posts: 55
    Wouldn't it be a boring world if everyone liked the same design? I guess beauty really is in the eye of the beholder...
  • dave90dave90 Member Posts: 27
    Hate to bring a fact into all this talk about how the CX-9 gives up "a few more inches of legroom in the #rd row" for styling, but...

    CX-9 3rd row legroom 32.4"

    Lambda legroom (Outlook) 33.2"

    Almost an inch less than the lambdas. That must be the difference between cavernous and small! :P
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    It's ok to tailor different vehicles to different tastes and preferences. Every situation has its drawbacks as well as attributes. And that's ok. It is also ok that some designs hit the mark better than others in terms of sales. It is all ok.
  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    I thought that the Dodge Magnum was the station wagon version of the 300?
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    I'll have to chime on this one. You are right about the legroom, but legroom and headroom numbers can be faked with uncomfortable seats.

    The 3rd row in the lambdas is on a whole different level of comfort than what you will find on a CX9. I know that for a painful fact, since it is why my wife didn't want us to get one. I still have not given up on it, as I think the CX9 looks nicer than the Outlook and will have the new 3.7 liter engine pretty soon.

    Size aside, it will be much easier to get in and out of 3rd row or place a kid on a car seat back there. The extra wheelbase and the space opened by the collapsing 2nd row seats really shines in that regard. That said, it really took some practice, and a bit of strength, to operate the 2nd row mechanism with a single hand.
  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    "And there was a bias I can prove - go to the MPG thread, there was a call-out for people getting more than 30mpg. That's slanted reporting."

    Come on, you yourself called out for people who had only gotten 20 MPH, though I think I may have been the only one to respond. (yeah, my FS gets 20 - 21 if the tank is all "in town".)
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Are you arguing that people decide on their purchases based on not caring for their flaws (small 3rd row, little space, excess weight) ?

    Tell me how a small 3rd row is a flaw if you don't need it for more the kids? That's like saying the Civic is flawed becuase the rear seat is small.

    I'm still waiting for a response to my previous post about the FS and lambda differences other than towing ability and the ability to fit an extra person in there.

    And I'd believe hip/leg/head measurements over passenger CuFt anytime...I'd like to have some idea of where that passenger CuFt is located.
  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    "Other than the extremes of butt-ugly like the Aztek, AMC Gremlin to stunning and timeless like a 68 Mustang or Lambo Countach I don't much care how my car looks."

    Don't be me started on the Gremlin. That was my first car, and did you know it had a larger engine and yet better MPG than any other subcompact of the era?

    I realize it had a hatchback, but a CUV? Obviously it MUST have been a CUV, or why would it be discussed on this forum? :blush:
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    I thought that the Dodge Magnum was the station wagon version of the 300?

    It *is* the station wagon version of the 300, but no 3rd row of seats and a chopped roof took away some of its utility.

    The requisite wheelbase, length, and width are all there though.
  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    "It *is* the station wagon version of the 300, but no 3rd row of seats and a chopped roof took away some of its utility.

    The requisite wheelbase, length, and width are all there though."

    Well, I was responding to the post that said he would have a 300 based station wagon in his driveway RIGHT NOW if it were available. Someone should steer him to the nearest Dodge dealer... :P
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    I'm still waiting for a response to my previous post about the FS and lambda differences other than towing ability and the ability to fit an extra person in there.

    If you mean the Taurus X (necessary distinction due to increased gas mileage that puts it "on par" - is that the sound of a vein popping on someone's head? - with the class,) the lambdas are worse here:

    * more expensive
    * a bothersome loud rumble when idling inside our garage, but that could be echo since the 3.6 liter engine is not that big)
    * potentially slower at high speeds (the hp/lb favors the TaurusX but the GM V6 torque peaks sooner)
    * their designs are marred by a false sense of overdoneness
    * harder to step into 1st and 2nd rows

    and better here:

    * more ground clearance without sacrificing safety (as pointed out by the accident avoidance maneuver numbers)
    * more interior space, specially cargo space
    * easier access to third row
    * HID as an option - important for our deer-prone area
    * smoother ride due to being overweight and having a longer wheelbase
    * they can outcrush a Taurus X on impact

    And I'd believe hip/leg/head measurements over passenger CuFt anytime...I'd like to have some idea of where that passenger CuFt is located.

    Don't let me stop you from doing your own research. Drive an Outlook to your nearest Ford dealer and see for yourself. Saturn will in fact encourage you to do so, keep it for 24 hours and let you walk home without asking any question.

    Word of advice, if you have elder people in your family, don't bother with the lambdas, they will complain every time they climb on it - I know my mother-in-law (64) did.

    I didn't list weight as a disadvantage as it doesn't seem to affect it negatively on a comparison with the Taurus X numbers other than offending some sensibilities.

    Is that impartial enough for you?
  • wlbrown9wlbrown9 Member Posts: 867
    Word of advice, if you have elder people in your family, don't bother with the lambdas, they will complain everytime they climb on it.

    What would you recommend for the elderly? Yukon or Expediton with side steps perhaps? Something else?

    I'm in my mid 50s now and would rather climb up into a little taller SUV than sit down in a low slung sedan or coupe then have to struggle get back up off the ground.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    I'm in my mid-fifties too. The day I have to struggle to get back out of regular sedan height is the day I start applying myself a bit more at the gym. :)

    Seriously, the elderly seem to prefer ride heights like those offered in the Avalon, new Taurus and Impala. any higher or lower can be bothersome. Not always though. My eighty-something mother broke her ankle trying and failing to properly use an Explorer running board. However, both she and her older sister enjoyed rides in my TT roadster, never complaining it was too low. Of course neither would want it for their daily driver (one has a mid-size Ford sedan, the other an Impala).
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    I don't consider mid50s elder.

    We had my mother-in-law (64) over during the weekend we had the Outlook and thought it would be nice to have an extra body in the test-drive to test interior space.

    Maybe my advice should have been "if you have a picky mother-in-law, don't bother with the lambdas".
  • volkovvolkov Member Posts: 1,306
    I realize it had a hatchback, but a CUV? Obviously it MUST have been a CUV, or why would it be discussed on this forum? :blush:

    Well as you alluded to, it actually had a bigger engine than most of the vehicles we're discussing.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Isn't that something?? Bigger engine, but agricultural in nature and very low hp by comparison with today (though the torque was good).

    I had an older girlfriend at the time whose father bought her a new 73 purple Gremlin X. It had high back buckets and a manual transmission between them. At the time, I thought it was a pretty fun ride. I still have a photo of me with my boot up on the rear bumper, my hair down my back and a mature marijuana plant in my hand. Ah, those days of being very young, pretty and stupid. TMI? :blush:
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    Are you arguing that people decide on their purchases based on not caring for their flaws (small 3rd row, little space, excess weight) ?

    Do you hear what you are saying? I bet if you were single without kids you would buy some little sports coupe with a little backseat. And there is nothing wrong with that. One man's idea of a flaw mean nothing to another man.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Come on, you yourself called out for people who had only gotten 20 MPH

    Absolutely, and I explained why right then and there.

    FS fans go and ask only for the good data, 30mpg plus. So first I asked why, and pointed out that this would slant the mileage figures.

    I then asked for those under 20, so we'd get a complete report of both the good and the bad. That's what should have been asked for in the first place.

    That's how you get the whole picture. Looks like you might see anywhere from 13mpg all the way up to 33mpg in a Freestyle. I think that's useful to know. :shades:
  • barnstormer64barnstormer64 Member Posts: 1,106
    I am close to someone who has a Montego, and it is very nice. There beauty is more than skin deep, but that's the problem. There is no beauty in their skin

    Some of us find CLASS more beautiful than FLASH. :P
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    I bet if you were single without kids you would buy some little sports coupe with a little backseat

    Before I win that bet (more on that later,) I pointed out that you listed rejection factors as the deciding motive for a purchase.

    People don't buy an Enclave because its chrome grille can be seen from the moon with a naked eye or because they crack the pavement underneath them; they ignore these aspects because of other things they like.

    So, if someone comes over and asks "Jim, nice Taurus X, how do you like it?", the answer is never going to be "I bought it because I don't care that it looks like the box it came in" but probably something like "It fits all of our stuff, it is safe and it gets good mileage".

    Since your examples were not acutely negative, I gave you the benefit of doubt asking whether you were arguing that way.

    Now for the bet you lost; when I was fresh out of college and still single without kids, I started a small company and didn't have money for my own car before I got married two years later.

    After a couple of years, things turned out much better and, still without kids, I bought a brand new...Mercury Sable. For the same money I could buy an Acura Integra, but I went for the comfort. I was 25 and still remember driving to the Mercury/Lincoln dealership for oil changes and talking to elderly Lincoln owners older than my parents.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    Some of us find CLASS more beautiful than FLASH.

    You don't have to give up one for the other. The likes of the 300 is classy. And define class. If we're talking about pros and cons, the only thing the 300 loses to a Montego is headroom and trunkspace. And having something in your driveway that's nice to look at is a plus, too.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    About the sports car thing, i meant in your low forties, single living in some big city- you know the stereotype. Not everyone's needs are fit by one vehicle. And of course they don't by a vehicle because they can overlook the cons (although you may hear minivan owners on this forum saying they don't care about the stigma). They buy it because the pros outweigh the cons (like because even though you can't get two adults in the back of you're 6 series, it doesn't matter. It's only you, and maybe that girl you met at the bar last night. You are just concerned about looking good. Sorry- maybe not the best example :P )
  • barnstormer64barnstormer64 Member Posts: 1,106
    The likes of the 300 is classy. And define class

    To me, the 300 isn't classy, it's flashy.
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    even though you can't get two adults in the back of you're 6 series

    Ah, a 6 series, that's a different story. You said little sports coupe. I have not given up on a 6-series in this lifetime, but I will probably have to see my three kids through college first.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    I think the 300 is classy in an almost Bentley kind of way. The 500 to me is more like the Impala or most versions of the Avalon...innocuous with a fair number of attributes, but neither flashy nor classy. The 500 will never look like a "classic" car, any more than let's say the 1980's version of the Camry does. It is inoffensive and so will always be.

    Ford has made some classy and understated designs over the years, some examples being the original T-bird, Lincoln Mark I, II, III, VII; the 61-69 Continental, 66-67 Mercury Comet, 67-68 Cougar, 69-70 LTD. Ford occasionally does bold well too, e.g. original Taurus, 83-86 T-bird, 89 Probe, teh last Cougar coupe, 97 F150.

    The 500/Montego is not classy or flashy or remarkable in any way styling-wise, except for being a boring derivative of an Audi A6. Wow, did I get off the subject of CUVs!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    What thread am I in right now? ;)
  • chuckhoychuckhoy Member Posts: 420
    Of course the spouse veto will make all of this discussion moot

    That is what happened to me. When she said that she wanted seating for at least 7, I thought a minivan was the way to go. More bang (interior space and options) for the buck. But, she really wanted an Outlook. Loved the way it looks. Loves everything about it, so that is what we got.

    In one hand I had a couple thousand dollars, in the other was a happy wife. Pretty easy choice. If the wife ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.

    I also got an agreement that the next vehicle purchase decision will be mine to make. Mine alone. Then we will have an odd garage. An Outlook next to a compact. Something like a Mini.
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    Glad we are back to crossover and tall-wagon discussions.

    Started doing some research on CX-9 safety ratings.

    No IIHS data for it yet.

    NHSA gave it 5 stars on frontal crash test, but has not performed side crash or rollover tests yet.

    At 4500 lbs, not a horse jockey either, but the new 3.7 liter will make it move fast. C&D already clocked the 2007 3.5 version at 7.8 seconds from 0-60, which will make it one of the fastest, if not the fastest, CUV in the segment.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    If the wife ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.

    How true...I've heard it said like this:

    Happy wife, happy life.
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    VW minivan
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    I also got an agreement that the next vehicle purchase decision will be mine to make. Mine alone. Then we will have an odd garage. An Outlook next to a compact. Something like a Mini.
    In my garage there's a Fit beside my FS.

    BTW...you can go to any MPG forum on Edmunds and read about really great and really poor mpg, so this sort of thing is hard to qualify. I think a lot has to do with the driver and the type of driving.

    With my FS MPG, I consistently get in the low 20s in mixed driving and upper 20's on the highway. My FS has about 54K miles on it. With my Fit, I'll get in the low 30s in mixed and high 30s on the highway, and the Fit has about 13K miles. Based on the MPG forum on Edmunds, I'm at the upper end of the MPG spectrum. Not the best, but then on the highway I'm not driving 60mph! When my wife drives, she races around a little more in both cars and the MPG suffers by about 10% because of it.

    Anyway, with respect to safety and MPG, I don't think any of the CUVs being discussed here are that much better or worse to make it much of a discussion topic...more just spinning-of-wheels :P

    And the reasons a person gives for buying a car are sometimes a lot different then the real reason. Someone buying a Lexus SUV might say that they bought it for safety, reliability and that it holds all of their stuff, but the real reason will either be that they're wanting to impress someone, or that all of their friends have cars in a similar "class," so they don't want to be seen driving a Toyota Highlander.
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    Well, not externally speaking, but the price and features seem interesting. It has a bit more ground clearance than the Odyssey and will deserve a test-drive in the next couple of weeks.

    It seems Chrysler skimped on the mechanics (push-rod engines or a 16/23 mpg 4.0 liter engine,) which will only be solved after 2010. But at least 6 gears are available.
  • svofan2svofan2 Member Posts: 442
    ..could someone PLEASE>>>>> what is a lambda??????????????
  • wlbrown9wlbrown9 Member Posts: 867
    Well, my 90 year old mother still is able to climb into my Trooper, with a little care and use of the handles. She is probably more comfortable getting in and out of her Buick Century. We usually get her in the front seat but second row would not be that bad either. I would NOT expect her to get in the 3rd row of our Envoy XL or of one of the lambdas either...Envoy has a little advantage in that it is hot quite as high and does have side steps.

    I (mid-50s) still get around pretty good most of the time, esp. if I keep up the exercise, etc. But I would rather sit a little more upright, glad I don't have the '74 Datsun Z any more...long way up from sitting almost on the pavement :-).
  • chuckhoychuckhoy Member Posts: 420
    Lambda refers to the body that the Buick Enclave, GMC Acadia and Saturn Outlook share. They are mechanically identical and just have differing sheetmetal exteriors and some interior fetures. But, they are pretty much, the same.
  • chuckhoychuckhoy Member Posts: 420
    My 87 year old grandmother-in-law had no trouble getting into or out of my Outlook. Then again, she is MUCH healthier than a typical 87 year old. I think that it depends on the health/mobility of the person involved.
  • wlbrown9wlbrown9 Member Posts: 867
    "I'm in my mid-fifties too. The day I have to struggle to get back out of regular sedan height is the day I start applying myself a bit more at the gym."

    I work out regularly but do have longer than normal legs. I was probably thinking more of the several rental cars I had over the past 5-10 years...more in the less expensive class of vehicles used for a one day rental while in the shop, no need to spend an extra $20 for a big vehicle to make one round trip to work. Some of them have been more like sitting with your butt in a hole, uncomfortable for even a fit person. I had a '74 Datsun 260Z way back then...I liked it then but would not want it as a daily drive now due to driving position. I've gotten used to the more upright position and really like being able to see traffic better.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    They do look good. The 2nd row window now slides down, finally, and a 6 speed auto on the two big V6s don't hurt. Also, you can swivel the seats outward to make it easier to buckle in a small child, which is nifty.

    The table and seats that face each other remind me of VW Vanagons, so perhaps we should not be surprised that VW will use this platform for their own new vans.

    Keep in mind the mileage figures are under the new 2008 EPA revised standards. 16/23 matches what Honda gets without VCM.

    The MPG champs among minivans for 2008 are still all Toyotas and Hondas with VCM (both 17/24). Chrysler's 3.3l V6 matches those numbers but the press is calling it underpowered, and it only gets a 4 speed auto.

    Similarly, you'll see all the Crossovers drop about 10% in their 2008 EPA numbers when those come out. Expect about a 2mpg drop in the EPA numbers.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Anyone with a link to the specs of the new Chrysler minivans interior and exterior? Seems like the Chrysler page I get only has the short version.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    This is all I've seen:

    First Drive: 2008 Dodge Grand Caravan
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    That is the real deal, the short version is discontinued according to C&D.

    They do look shorter, maybe because of the oversized sliding doors.

    Some of the external numbers are class toppers:

    Overall length: 202.5
    Wheelbase: 121.2

    201/118.1 for the Odyssey.

    But the disappointment is really inside, even with the extra inches on the outside, it gave out 2-3 inches of legroom on 2nd/3rd rows and another 6 cu.ft. behind 3d row.

    I guess we can blame the big nose. I don't know, somehow that longer hood was meant to create a better styling, but it reminds me of the deceased GM minivans every time I look at it.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    It is boxier, I actually liked the styling of the current vans better. Heck, I'd even go back one generation and say that styling really peaked back then.

    That's a nice, long wheelbase. I bet the ride is pretty smooth. Hope the turning circle is reasonable, though.
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    38 vs 36.9 for the Odyssey.

    There is something to be said about taking two years longer to fall short from all competitor's dimensions.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I wouldn't be so quick to judge.

    I'm sure they had to make some compromises to get the 2nd row seats to swivel, maybe the 3rd row had to be farther back to make room for all those legs?

    I don't think an inch here or there will matter much, all minivans pretty much have enough space in all 3 rows. If cargo space is tight they'll just toss one of those Sears X-Cargo things on top and/or a bike rack.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles