In any case, I would expect pricing to be about $6000 more than a similarly equipped Edge. I think that would put in in line with the rest of the Ford lineup.
Sounds about right. An Edge ranges roughly from 26K to 37K as a five seater so I am thinking the Flex will range from 30s into the 40s - a bit boxy and pricey imo. I hope Ford will release this with the starting MSRP under 30K, and release it now, not 1 year and half from the time it debuted. Bad move.
If the Flex is supposed to be Ford's answer to the minivan, then it better start in the mid to upper 20's. You can get a basic Odyssey or Sienna in the upper 20s.
A comparable Acadia is $41,500 when I priced them. For some reason I couldn't get an Acadia with the rear DVD and the navigation system though so I priced it with the latter. The TX lets you have both and it was priced with both when I did my comparo. The loaded TX was $39,100. Take the DVD out and it would be $38,100.
I don't feel that's unreasonable given the price of the competition and the Flex will be right there with them. Has GM lost it too? :P
Crossovers generally cost more than vans do, though.
Look at the MPV and the CX9, for instance. Towards the end of production you could get an MPV LX for $18 grand, seriously. The CX9 is a whole lot more expensive, probably $10 grand or more difference comparably equipped.
You can get a basic Odyssey or Sienna in the upper 20s
Even less than that. My Sienna was $25k and it's not hardly stripped, with 6CD/MP3 changer, dual power sliding doors, dual A/C, steering wheel audio controls, trip computer, heated mirrors, tint, roof rack with cross bars, wiper de-icer, alloy wheels, etc.
And before anyone chimes in with their $40,000 Sienna story name one other van that offers AWD, HIDs, and Laser Cruise Control to go with the DVD screen and GPS Navigation.
Yes, I think the Outlook and the Acadia are overpriced by 2-3K at least. With the same level of equipment they are slightly more expensive than the would be Lexus-fighter Enclave.
It's true that minivans are generally cheaper, but since Ford isn't offering a minivan, you'd think that their minivan equivalent would start at a lower price.
That being said, it really doesn't appear that the Flex will be that much larger than a Freestyle, so it really won't be a minvan replacement anyway.
And the same can be said about the lambda's pricing. Without a lower priced GM minivan alternative, they're not going to be taking very many folks away from the Odyssey, Sienna, or other potential minivan owners.
Well, GM and Ford probably figured they could not compete profitably in the minivan segment.
It was only going to get worse. The best vans in the segment keep getting better, and the segment itself is shrinking.
So they don't want to switch segments and continue the same, lowest-price approach. That would just lead to more losses and uncompetitive product.
I'm sure the crossover replacements are selling at much higher transactions prices, enough so that GM and Ford can actually hope to make a profit on them.
Plus, hopefully they make enough to fund the R&D of replacement models, so we don't end up with the tragedy of ancient product.
Example: Windstar, Freestar, ...same-old same-Oldstar? When was the last clean-sheet redesign? 1996? I didn't have any kids back then. They were still trying to sell that ancient platform.
Same with GM. How old was the Venture? Mid 90s? The Uplander was just a warmed-over Venture, a new beak just to pass the crash tests.
The bean counters just figured, let's sell a lame-duck minivan and try to squeeze the last bit of juice from it.
Does GM want the same fate from the Lambdas? I hope not.
Hopefully the product gurus win out, and we see enhancements instead of rebates.
Crossovers generally cost more than vans do, though. Look at the MPV and the CX9, for instance.
I don't know that this is true for comparably equipped and engineered mini-vans vs SUVs. The MPV didn't have comparable engine, transmission, interior, wheels, well anything, that would hold a candle to what you can find on a CX-9.
If you look at the Odyssey and Pilot, their prices are very similar when packing the same options.
One could still argue that the minivan packs more metal and interior space, and therefore is relatively cheaper.
But look at a Mazda MPV vs. a Ford Freestyle. Both had the 3.0l Duratec, the MPV had a JATCO 5 speed, and you could get an MPV LX for $18 grand.
Despite value pricing for the Freestyle, you still can't get one that cheap.
I cross-shopped the Ody with the Pilot, among many others, the Ody $800-1300 cheaper than even the FWD Pilot. And the Ody was a newer, fresher product, so that was a Pilot with steep discounts.
Siennas started at $21-22k, Highlander cost more when I looked even with a lame 4-banger.
The drop in the minivan segment has made it a buyer's market. I'll say it again, the rational buyer will pick a minivan over a crossover. It's the emotional side that wins them over.
I guess they know folks by CUVs for more than practical reasons (looks, style, image). The minivan buyers are generally more practical, so maybe that's why they're cheaper?
Looks like GM really wanted to release a lambda early next year. But since they rushed the Acadia ahead about a year, they were deprived of this joy. So now Chevy gets one! That's about all the logic I got for this one. I don't know what to say! GM was doing so good moving away from the copying. But Hey, GM hasn't had a hot multi vehicle newcome seller like this in over 20 years! If the styling is good, and packageing set apart from it's fellow platform sharers, You can't really find fault with the vehicle. But where will it fall (hopefully below Outlook?) And what the -- is up with this naming? Traverse? Even Acadia made more sense than that! Here's an idea- How about Uplander? The only thing holding it down is it's predescessor, the "sportvan." Land Rover-Land Cruiser-Uplander? this is essentially the market GM sorta kinda wants this vehicle to be in. The company that is starting to defy the laws of badge engineering (and they invented it!) For GM's sake, I hope this doesn't backfire!
I just ordered my Enclave. One thing that doesn't get much attention is the tomb-like quiet of this CUV. It's noticeably quieter than my Lexus ES-330 sedan - which was arguably the quietest sub-$40 K car on the market when I bought it 4 years ago.
If you're looking for a comfortable, quiet CUV, I haven't seen anything close to the Enclave. Interestingly, there's a BIG difference between the Enclave and the Outlook which I also drove.
For scale, check out the CR-V behind it, the Chevy looks a whole lot bigger.
I hope they can differentiate it somewhat from the Outlook and Acadia. Buick did a good job with that, IMO. You would not know it's a clone if you weren't told.
The Chevy looks a lot like the Outlook, though. Build a Lambda with a bigger rear window so you can see better out the back.
Build a Lambda with a bigger rear window so you can see better out the back.
Not sure a bigger window would help. I think it has more to do with the seat being in the way and the window being way WAY back there. It reduces the angle that you can see out of it. Small cars kind of disappear back there...
Again, backup sensors are a MUST. Should be standard equipment for any vehicle with this poor visibility out the back.
Agreed, you just made it sound a lot funnier than I did.
I drove a base FWD Outlook, so it had no camera.
The CX9 I test drove had it. I felt the GPS screen was dim in the nighttime mode, though, even with the brightness up. Still, the backup features worked well.
Funny, though, I tried it in a Honda Odyssey, and found I didn't really need it. I guess the van just has bigger windows and better visibility. Even with the backup cam, I ended up turning around and backing up without using it.
Toyota builds one Highlander, Honda builds one Pilot, but GM and Ford insist on all this trim-work as a differentiator.
Except for the Enclave with distinct sound-deadening enhancements and completely different sheet-metal than its siblings, I really can't see the point.
GM lost a golden opportunity to kill badge-engineering, with the lambda's attracting people who never visited, or had stopped visiting, GM dealerships for a while. Is there someone out there who would buy an Acadia but not an Outlook if the Acadia didn't exist? Four flavors of the same vehicle must be killing the economies of scale for GM.
I understand your point, and even agree, but I bet it's the Chevy dealers that convinced GM to give them one of these. Especially since they gave up the Uplander.
I was surprised that GMC got one before Chevy did.
I think it's because of the old-school mentality that GM is still the "big-one" when it comes to car manufacturers. I think the domestics should just accept that they're not any longer, and should downsize their divisions appropriately.
Good point, GM should stick with Chevrolet and Cadillac. I am not sure what it would do to logistics since it is unlikely that Saturn, GMC and Buick dealers would just willingly walk into the pit.
Same thing with Ford and Lincoln only, drop Mercury.
Now that Saturn is basically their Opel it might make sense to keep that brand, too.
Still, the Sky is a clone of the Solistice, and the Outlook is a clone of the Acadia. Chevy is getting a version of the new Vue that looks very similar. So only the Astra is unique, and will it remain that way?
Oh, and while the Aura is OK, it still looks too much like the G6 it shares a platform with. If you ignore their surfaces, all the hard points are the same.
GM and Ford insist on all this trim-work as a differentiator.
I think part of the badge engineering problem is making sure they have product for the various standalone dealers. It must have cost a fortune to retire Oldsmobile, and if they quit making, say, GMCs, even if all they offer are twinned vehicles, the dealers will drag them to court.
Toyota and Honda have done a better job with keeping Scion and Lexus and Acura distinct even though you know they are sharing lots of parts, platform bits and engineering. It's amazing how many people don't realize that an Infiniti is a gussied up Nissan for example.
The Lexus RX series shares many of the same parts as the Highlander -- I understand they have the same engine and transmission.
You can always make one dealership network go out of business with a full line up of Aztecs, Ions, and Uplanders :-D But you are right, they would sue GM no matter what.
It's amazing how many people don't realize that an Infiniti is a gussied up Nissan for example.
I guess this was true in the past and may be true for the Armada/QX45, but for the passenger cars the rear-drive platform used on the G/M/Q models is very different than one would find on a fwd Nissan.
Even so, there is a common theme with the Japanese manufactures, which is "mass brand / luxury brand". GM, Chrysler and Ford go out with multiple flavors of basic and, Cadillac aside, pseudo-luxury brands.
On the other hand, the lambda's interior only differs on some portions of the dashes. The switchgear on an Enclave is the same as you would find on a "lesser" Outlook.
I doubt Toyota would ever add neon lighting to a Corolla's interior and call it Scion Something.
I drive 200-300 miles twice a week. As a nearly 60 year old baby boomer geezer, I want a comfortable ride.
Can anyone comment from experience about ride comfort on Rt 81 or Rt 66. Am thinking Saturn Outlook or GM Acacia, but would also consider cx9 and even Volvo XC90. or ???
As an owner of an Outlook and recently taken it on a 1200 mile (a lot of interstate, but with quite a bit of 2-lane highway and gravel roads) trip in it and the ride is anything but harsh.
I test-drove an Outlook and a CX-9 in the last few weeks. The Outlook has a cushier ride due to its heavier weight and long wheelbase.
I have never driven an RX-350 but I would also consider the Buick Enclave, which has not only the Outlook comfortable ride , but considerably less interior noise.
I actually somewhat like a form of badge engineering. Without it there would be fewer choices. One of the reasons I would never buy a Toyota or a Honda is because there are so many of them. It's like going to a party and 12 women have the same dress on. Here in NYC area there are way too many beige Camrys, the only thing to tell them apart is if the driver has gray hair, silver hair or blue hair!
Interesting point. However, even though I see around 6 to 10 silver RX 350s every day, I would argue that Lexus has been successful and respected in a way that GM definitely has not.
Sometimes I wonder if we consumers who value uniqueness really know what's good for us... I know we'd probably complain if all we had to choose from was Chevy and Cadillac - but if GM followed the Japanese model more closely, could they find that they are more profitable? There is also a law of diminishing returns where you have to wonder if the effort to create a Mercury or Lincoln clone of a Ford Explorer is really worth the sales that might otherwise be lost to another marque if the gussied-up SUVs didn't exist... Or should Ford perhaps forget the badge engineering and concentrate on making the Explorer a world-leader? Sometimes quality generates quantity; they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
On the flip side, if a domestic automaker goes belly-up because they are jacking around too much with badge engineering, it will have far-reaching economic impacts on all of us, and we might find ourselves wishing for that appliance-white Malibu after all...
Here's a suggestion for ya...when is the next local auto show?
I'd go, and then sit inside all of these. Seat comfort is a biggie. We are all shaped differently. Some people like high bolstering to hold them in place, others want a wider, flat seat with arm rests.
Another big issue is seat height. Depending on how tall you are, you may have to climb up. It's much easier to just slide in. Being high up does give you an edge in visibility, so that's the trade off.
Have you test-fitted any of these?
I think that seat comfort and ergonomics are probably even more important than an isolated ride for long trips.
Add the Hyundai Veracruz to your list. I was surprised at how comfortable the seat was. Much better than the Santa Fe or Entourage/Sedona seats.
Or do what I do. Dealers are closed on Sunday around here and all of them accidentally leave the doors unlocked on a few of each vehicle they sell. I always check for unlocked doors and therefore get to check out the interiors without being hassled.
I do leave the door open when I'm in it though otherwise the security guard might show up.
Stopped by at the Buick dealer this morning on may way back home. I didn't have time for a test-drive but wanted to check whether the dealer was been forthcoming about their availability.
It turns out they had one that had not been sold yet and they didn't give me a call. The Internet Sales manager said he "lost my e-mail".
It was a silver CXL FWD, loaded with everything under the sun, including the 19" chrome wheels: 43K!!
Now, one thing I didn't expect, the half leather-half wood finish on the steering wheel is *AWFUL*. When we were maneuvering it in the parking lot, the sensation of touching wood with one hand and leather with the other was utterly unsettling. I can only imagine how dangerous it can get for those with sweaty palms.
I really like the half wood/half leather look. It's classy looking.
I don't know. I have driven plenty of cars and trucks over the years with smooth plastic steering wheel finishes. Didn't like the feel all that much (cheap!), but never did it constitute anything dangerous.
19" chrome wheels are going to weight a *ton*. That's some serious unsprung weight. Watch out for ride, especially over potholes.
Not sure about Buick, but I do know Subaru uses real Zebrano wood on its LL Bean Outback, for instance, so some manufacturers do still use the real stuff.
I like the way it looks, not sure about the way it feels. I can see what you mean about the change of textures.
They use real mahogany wood on the steering wheel details, but it doesn't match all other fake wood details.
The ride should be smooth (we didn't drive it long, no time) over rough pavement. The heavy frame and relatively tall profile for the big tires absorb a lot of the vibrations. Suspension tunning is a high point in the lambdas.
The CX-9 GT I test-drove had 20" wheels and didn't feel bad over potholes. Of course, I am biased, because I drive my wife's Murano occasionally (talk about a harsh ride, even with 18"s. I can only imagine what the SE model feels like)
I am not a normal reader of this forum but have been a regular on Edmunds mostly Chrysler 300M with some Gr Cherokee too. I am in the market for a new CUV/SUV this fall as my son buys out my 01 JGC to use for college commutes in the MN winter.
I have narrowed an early pre-cold weather search down to a Saturn Outlook, Hyundai Veracruz in a tie. Possibly a Pilot or Toyota RAV4 V6 or new Highlander. I am considering a Gr Cherokee V6 since my old I6 model has been pretty good to me. I am trying to limit the price to < $30k so other than the RAV4 that is a base model although Jeep has some pretty good rebates and the new lifetime drivetrain now. However, there are times (<5%) where a 3rd seat would be handy for getting all my adult kids & sig others in the same car. And I do have a need (again <5%) to tow a 2500 lb 17ft fishing boat. Initial opinions make me vote for the Outlook & possibly Pilot for towing, have not seen an 08 Highlander yet and while gorgious the Veracruz seems to polished for towing and the RAV4 a bit too small. Obviously the Jeep can do the tow, but I lose the 3rd seat & some mpg.
However my real question is: Are there any reviews on the internet comparing the attributes of these CUV's FWD-and-use-rear-wheels-when-needed AWD systems???
The Jeep w/Quad trac II will do the job but I don't really need the off roading, have rarely used that on my 01 JGC. The Outlook has a towing button & 4500 lb rating implying better towing, but how will it do in a foot of snow? I have a friend w/a Pilot who is -very- impressed with the Honda AWD system pulling him through some gnarly back road glue. How about Hyundai, or Toyotas system for snow readiness or pulling a water filled trailer out of the ramp??? Do either have a good factory tow package (Toyota dealer wants $800 for a warranty covered dealer add one which is insane! But will one I add @ UHaul void the warranty?).
Thanks in advance if any readers have experience with these!
Wow, that is a loaded question. I think we have to narrow it down a bit.
Let's keep this in the context of AWD, not 4WD, and limit the discussion to crossovers, as opposed to SUVs. You said you don't need to go off road, so most of those are seriously overkill anyway.
Ground clearance is a big issue but you can just look that up. More is better in snow, so you don't end up high centering. The higher-up crossovers have 8" or more of clearance.
Let's focus on the AWD systems themselves, and what criteria we can use to evaluate them.
Finally, pulling a water filled trailer out of the ramp sounds like a fairly heavy duty job, so you may want to look for rear-biased AWD systems, since the rear axle does all the heavy lifting (literally) on an uphill incline. How much does that trailer weigh?
When I evaluate an AWD system, the questions I ask include:
* is the front axle managed? * is the rear axle managed? * is the system engineered for full-time use? * is the system proactive (vs. reactive)? * can the system send all the power to either axle?
For example, Toyota (RAV4/Highlander):
YES. Traction control does that. YES. Again, thanks to traction control. NO. It's for slippery surfaces and part-time only. NO. It's reactive. NO. It cannot send 100% of power to the rear axle.
So Toyota meets 2/5 criteria.
In fact most crossovers only meet 2 out of 5. CR-V, Escape, Vue.
For the Ford/Volvo haldex-based systems, the answers are Y, Y, N, N, N. Haldex is still reactive, part-time, and limited in the torque distribution. It may react quicker, but other than that it's not better than Toyota's system. I believe this applies to the Mazda CX9 and the Ford Freestyle/Taurus X.
For Audi Quattro (torsen-based) and some VWs, the answer are Y, Y, Y, Y, and N. 4 out of 5. Why? Because Torsens have a bias ratio, for Audi it is 2 to 1. That means the system is limited to sending 67% of torque to either axle, at most.
Surprise, Subaru's VDC wins here. It can do all 5. But you can only get VDC on the high-end Outbacks and the Tribeca. The Tribeca can tow 3500 lbs and clears more than 8", so for your criteria it might be #1.
Honda Pilot's VTM-4 is part-time. The rear axle disengaged completely above a certain speed (29mph IIRC). I believe it only meets 2/5 of the criteria I listed.
Acura's SH-AWD is better, the one on the MDX. It's proactive and can actively shift power even side-to-side. It manages 3 out of 5 of those criteria, but it is proactive in a way that others aren't (to help get around corners). Call it 3.5/5, maybe.
BMW's X-drive can do 4/5. The only thing it cannot do it send all power to the front axle.
Same for Infiniti. They get 4/5.
Of all the ones I've mentioned, Subaru, BMW, and Infiniti are rear-wheel-biased, i.e. more than 50% of power goes to the rear axle by default. Those will be by far the best pulling that wet trailer up a slippery ramp.
Think about it - all the weight shifts to the rear axle when you're going up hill. Part-time AWD systems have to have the front axle slip first, then they react, shift power to the rear axle, and finally start making progess. Wheelspin is likely if the trailer is heavy.
Having said that, I believe the Lamdba's also have a part-time, FWD based system, so my guess is 2/5, and please correct me if I'm wrong folks.
Hyundai I'm not sure. I seem to recall the old Santa Fe could not engage both the AWD system and traction control at the same time, so it would fail to meet several criteria I listed. It might only meet 1/5 (front axle managed). I do not know if the Veracruz' system is any better, though, please share if anyone has more info on it.
Some good sources:
For differentials (torsen, viscous couplings, haldex, rotary blade couplings):
"There is a bit of dangerous "unloading" of the CVT after lifting on full-throttle, with the car still accelerating until the rpm's come down. Not sure the FS has the same problem."
I don't consider it a problem, but yes, the FS CVT has the same characteristics. It seems when you take your foot off that the vehicle decelerates much slower than a conventional transmission. I use this for better MPG in town.
"On the weight of the Lambdas, the hot topic around here: I personally think it's impressive that they basically match (if not exceed) all the usable space of an Expedition/Navigator and sliced off 1000 lbs, greatly improving MPG. I guess most people aren't looking at it that way. They are the biggest CUV's, why wouldn't they weigh the most?"
You are comparing apples to oranges. The Expedition is a body-on-frame, which is far heavier. That is the same construction as the Tahoe, for example. The Lamda is a unit-body construction.
Wow, thanks, I appreciate all the leads and will read up more this weekend when I have a bit more time! I will look into Subaru as well, which I'd dismissed in an off hours peak in the window mainly since the fuel economy was about as low as the Jeep Gr Cherokee. Since you did the work for me on most of these, I went and did some skims on Hyundai & GM/Saturn.
Hyundai Tucson Motor Trend Trunk Trend Front drive is standard on the entire line with electronic AWD a no-cost option on the Limited. This system normally routes up to 99 percent of the power to the front wheels, but can run 50 percent of the power to the rear as conditions change. The Tucson's center differential can be manually locked for an even 50/50 power split at speeds below 25 mph at the push of a button.
AUTOBLOG on 08 Veracruz AVAILABLE ELECTRONIC ALL WHEEL DRIVE Hyundai has added an Intelligent Torque Controlled Coupling All Wheel Drive (AWD) system to propel Veracruz through the elements. Using wheel speed sensors to monitor the road and the driver, this electronic system can sense when and where more torque is required and route it there automatically. Power is transmitted to the rear wheels through a multi-plate clutch without any extra effort from the driver. An AWD lock mode can be engaged with the touch of a button, providing a 50:50 torque ratio when needed at low speeds.
SATURN OUTLOOK (ACADIA,ENCLAVE - their Lambda platform) From Autoweek & others: The optional full-time awd system splits torque 60 percent to the front and 40 percent to the rear on dry pavement and adjusts when it detects slipping.
This from James Healy in USA Today: AWD system normally sends 10% of power to the rear wheels, 40% under hard acceleration, up to 100% if the front wheels have no traction; uses sensors to anticipate when to send power to rears, instead of waiting for fronts to slip.
Hmmm, those two sorta seem to contradict but both the 4500lb tow rating and some drive going to the rear wheels imply this may be the better occasional boat trailer hauler. And I know the salesman showed me a "Tow/Trailer" or 4WD button on the console, so I need to go back and look at that as I cannot find anymore info on the web.
In the Murano, when accelerating from 50 to 60 mph and lifting the throttle, speed *still* increases 2-3 mph before slowing down. That is what I meant by "unloading".
You are comparing apples to oranges. The Expedition is a body-on-frame, which is far heavier. That is the same construction as the Tahoe, for example. The Lamda is a unit-body construction.
It may be apples to oranges but he does have a point, other than the massive towing advantage for the Expedition (6000-9100lbs) and the ability to carry an extra passenger, there is not much practical difference between the two.
To preclude a comparison because of what is under the sheet-metal seems arbitrary. In fact that would be an advantage for the lambda as its ride is more comfortable and predictable than on the Expedition.
In fact, many of the dimensional differences (shoulder room, cargo space, track, wheelbase, towing capacity) between a lambda and the Expedition are *smaller* than the differences between a lambda and a Taurus X, and yet, we still compare both.
Make sure you looked at a 2008 Tribeca. Not just the looks are improved. The fuel economy is too. And don't forget, all 2008 MPG figures are lower. You can get direct comparisons to 2007 numbers by going to the EPA web site.
Not only that but it is usually more fruitful to compare things that are different than to compare things that are the same! Sorry - I couldn't resist!
In fact, many of the dimensional differences (shoulder room, cargo space, track, wheelbase, towing capacity) between a lambda and the Expedition are *smaller* than the differences between a lambda and a Taurus X, and yet, we still compare both.
Really, a lambda does soething a TX can't- it can effectively replace the Expedition in someone's garage. The only thing one really gives up is towing, and a lot of Expedition owning families don't do that. Plus with a Lambda, you get car mileage,way better handling, and more cargo space, and your ride will be more comfortable. And (I guess this is a plus for some) no one will criticise you for driving a wimpy crossover, instead of a real man's SUV (some are like that).
Actually compared to a lambda, even the short-version Expedition has 3" more 2nd row legroom and 4" more 3rd row legroom, a couple more inches of hiproom, more shoulder room in rows 1&2, but less in row 3, and about the same headroom. So even in the short Expedition, you're getting more leg and shoulder room than the lambda, but it's true that the short Expedition is still 5" longer than the lambda. If you have a long version Expedition, then you're also getting 42CuFt of cargo space behind the 3rd row, but then you're addding 20" of length as compared to a lambda.
So there's more than towing that might make an Expedition owner not want to downsize to a lambda. There's less overall interior space.
As far as MPG...the Expedition is rated at 19mpg highway as compared to 24hwy for the lambda. Depending on your budget, if you drive 15,000 miles at 19mpg you're paying about $500/year more than at 24mpg, or about $9.50/week. Significant to some, but then if you're paying $40K for a big SUV, you may be more interested in comfort, more interior space, and other features than downsizing to a lambda just to save $9.50/week.
Actually compared to a lambda, even the short-version Expedition has 3" more 2nd row legroom and 4" more 3rd row legroom, a couple more inches of hiproom, more shoulder room in rows 1&2, but less in row 3, and about the same headroom. So even in the short Expedition, you're getting more leg and shoulder room than the lambda, but it's true that the short Expedition is still 5" longer than the lambda. If you have a long version Expedition, then you're also getting 42CuFt of cargo space behind the 3rd row, but then you're addding 20" of length as compared to a lambda.
You're forgetting the 10 extra cuft of cargo space you get in a lambda as opposed to base expy, and if you get the near 2 ft longer EL, you only gain 10-15 extra ft of cargo space over a lambda. I believe the third row advantage of expy to lambda is only 3 inches. So, overall, there IS more interior room in a lambda, which is almost half a foot shorter than the largest regular langth full size SUV (think of the smaller ones, like the Yukons and Armadas and Sequoias!).
This will definitely be cross shopped with full sized SUVs. That's the beauty of GM's crossovers. Though I'm not saying they are better than other crossovers, they do have the most flexiblity to go from replacing a vehicle like an MDX to replacing a vehicle like an Expedition. I don't think any other crossover can really effectively replace a full size SUV (a lot of that is because of it's dimensions- like width and height).
Comments
Sounds about right. An Edge ranges roughly from 26K to 37K as a five seater so I am thinking the Flex will range from 30s into the 40s - a bit boxy and pricey imo. I hope Ford will release this with the starting MSRP under 30K, and release it now, not 1 year and half from the time it debuted. Bad move.
A comparable Acadia is $41,500 when I priced them. For some reason I couldn't get an Acadia with the rear DVD and the navigation system though so I priced it with the latter. The TX lets you have both and it was priced with both when I did my comparo. The loaded TX was $39,100. Take the DVD out and it would be $38,100.
I don't feel that's unreasonable given the price of the competition and the Flex will be right there with them. Has GM lost it too? :P
Look at the MPV and the CX9, for instance. Towards the end of production you could get an MPV LX for $18 grand, seriously. The CX9 is a whole lot more expensive, probably $10 grand or more difference comparably equipped.
You can get a basic Odyssey or Sienna in the upper 20s
Even less than that. My Sienna was $25k and it's not hardly stripped, with 6CD/MP3 changer, dual power sliding doors, dual A/C, steering wheel audio controls, trip computer, heated mirrors, tint, roof rack with cross bars, wiper de-icer, alloy wheels, etc.
And before anyone chimes in with their $40,000 Sienna story name one other van that offers AWD, HIDs, and Laser Cruise Control to go with the DVD screen and GPS Navigation.
A loaded Sienna is a Lexus, basically.
Yes, I think the Outlook and the Acadia are overpriced by 2-3K at least. With the same level of equipment they are slightly more expensive than the would be Lexus-fighter Enclave.
That being said, it really doesn't appear that the Flex will be that much larger than a Freestyle, so it really won't be a minvan replacement anyway.
And the same can be said about the lambda's pricing. Without a lower priced GM minivan alternative, they're not going to be taking very many folks away from the Odyssey, Sienna, or other potential minivan owners.
MSRP in most cases is pure fantasy. Even invoice is often optimistic, because rebates show up more often than not.
It was only going to get worse. The best vans in the segment keep getting better, and the segment itself is shrinking.
So they don't want to switch segments and continue the same, lowest-price approach. That would just lead to more losses and uncompetitive product.
I'm sure the crossover replacements are selling at much higher transactions prices, enough so that GM and Ford can actually hope to make a profit on them.
Plus, hopefully they make enough to fund the R&D of replacement models, so we don't end up with the tragedy of ancient product.
Example: Windstar, Freestar, ...same-old same-Oldstar? When was the last clean-sheet redesign? 1996? I didn't have any kids back then. They were still trying to sell that ancient platform.
Same with GM. How old was the Venture? Mid 90s? The Uplander was just a warmed-over Venture, a new beak just to pass the crash tests.
The bean counters just figured, let's sell a lame-duck minivan and try to squeeze the last bit of juice from it.
Does GM want the same fate from the Lambdas? I hope not.
Hopefully the product gurus win out, and we see enhancements instead of rebates.
Look at the MPV and the CX9, for instance.
I don't know that this is true for comparably equipped and engineered mini-vans vs SUVs. The MPV didn't have comparable engine, transmission, interior, wheels, well anything, that would hold a candle to what you can find on a CX-9.
If you look at the Odyssey and Pilot, their prices are very similar when packing the same options.
One could still argue that the minivan packs more metal and interior space, and therefore is relatively cheaper.
But look at a Mazda MPV vs. a Ford Freestyle. Both had the 3.0l Duratec, the MPV had a JATCO 5 speed, and you could get an MPV LX for $18 grand.
Despite value pricing for the Freestyle, you still can't get one that cheap.
I cross-shopped the Ody with the Pilot, among many others, the Ody $800-1300 cheaper than even the FWD Pilot. And the Ody was a newer, fresher product, so that was a Pilot with steep discounts.
Siennas started at $21-22k, Highlander cost more when I looked even with a lame 4-banger.
The drop in the minivan segment has made it a buyer's market. I'll say it again, the rational buyer will pick a minivan over a crossover. It's the emotional side that wins them over.
It's definitely more "a stripped Lexus is a Toyota".
If you're looking for a comfortable, quiet CUV, I haven't seen anything close to the Enclave. Interestingly, there's a BIG difference between the Enclave and the Outlook which I also drove.
http://blogs.edmunds.com/Straightline/3221
For scale, check out the CR-V behind it, the Chevy looks a whole lot bigger.
I hope they can differentiate it somewhat from the Outlook and Acadia. Buick did a good job with that, IMO. You would not know it's a clone if you weren't told.
The Chevy looks a lot like the Outlook, though. Build a Lambda with a bigger rear window so you can see better out the back.
Not sure a bigger window would help. I think it has more to do with the seat being in the way and the window being way WAY back there. It reduces the angle that you can see out of it. Small cars kind of disappear back there...
Again, backup sensors are a MUST. Should be standard equipment for any vehicle with this poor visibility out the back.
I drove a base FWD Outlook, so it had no camera.
The CX9 I test drove had it. I felt the GPS screen was dim in the nighttime mode, though, even with the brightness up. Still, the backup features worked well.
Funny, though, I tried it in a Honda Odyssey, and found I didn't really need it. I guess the van just has bigger windows and better visibility. Even with the backup cam, I ended up turning around and backing up without using it.
I suppose it would come in handy in tight spaces.
Except for the Enclave with distinct sound-deadening enhancements and completely different sheet-metal than its siblings, I really can't see the point.
GM lost a golden opportunity to kill badge-engineering, with the lambda's attracting people who never visited, or had stopped visiting, GM dealerships for a while. Is there someone out there who would buy an Acadia but not an Outlook if the Acadia didn't exist? Four flavors of the same vehicle must be killing the economies of scale for GM.
I was surprised that GMC got one before Chevy did.
Same thing with Ford and Lincoln only, drop Mercury.
Still, the Sky is a clone of the Solistice, and the Outlook is a clone of the Acadia. Chevy is getting a version of the new Vue that looks very similar. So only the Astra is unique, and will it remain that way?
Oh, and while the Aura is OK, it still looks too much like the G6 it shares a platform with. If you ignore their surfaces, all the hard points are the same.
I think part of the badge engineering problem is making sure they have product for the various standalone dealers. It must have cost a fortune to retire Oldsmobile, and if they quit making, say, GMCs, even if all they offer are twinned vehicles, the dealers will drag them to court.
Toyota and Honda have done a better job with keeping Scion and Lexus and Acura distinct even though you know they are sharing lots of parts, platform bits and engineering. It's amazing how many people don't realize that an Infiniti is a gussied up Nissan for example.
The Lexus RX series shares many of the same parts as the Highlander -- I understand they have the same engine and transmission.
It's amazing how many people don't realize that an Infiniti is a gussied up Nissan for example.
I guess this was true in the past and may be true for the Armada/QX45, but for the passenger cars the rear-drive platform used on the G/M/Q models is very different than one would find on a fwd Nissan.
Even so, there is a common theme with the Japanese manufactures, which is "mass brand / luxury brand". GM, Chrysler and Ford go out with multiple flavors of basic and, Cadillac aside, pseudo-luxury brands.
On the other hand, the lambda's interior only differs on some portions of the dashes. The switchgear on an Enclave is the same as you would find on a "lesser" Outlook.
I doubt Toyota would ever add neon lighting to a Corolla's interior and call it Scion Something.
Still, even with the Toyota Camry/Lexus ES, we're only talking about 2 models, not 4. And they have distinct sheetmetal and features.
So that would be like having an Outlook and an Enclave, perhaps.
That still renders the Acadia and Traverse redundant.
Can anyone comment from experience about ride comfort on Rt 81 or Rt 66. Am thinking Saturn Outlook or GM Acacia, but would also consider cx9 and even Volvo XC90. or ???
Doesn't handle all that well, but that's the trade-off.
Even regular old Toyotas tend to ride quite well, so maybe try a Highlander.
Avoid the 18" rims on the sportier entries no matter what you choose.
I have never driven an RX-350 but I would also consider the Buick Enclave, which has not only the Outlook comfortable ride , but considerably less interior noise.
Sometimes I wonder if we consumers who value uniqueness really know what's good for us... I know we'd probably complain if all we had to choose from was Chevy and Cadillac - but if GM followed the Japanese model more closely, could they find that they are more profitable? There is also a law of diminishing returns where you have to wonder if the effort to create a Mercury or Lincoln clone of a Ford Explorer is really worth the sales that might otherwise be lost to another marque if the gussied-up SUVs didn't exist... Or should Ford perhaps forget the badge engineering and concentrate on making the Explorer a world-leader? Sometimes quality generates quantity; they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
On the flip side, if a domestic automaker goes belly-up because they are jacking around too much with badge engineering, it will have far-reaching economic impacts on all of us, and we might find ourselves wishing for that appliance-white Malibu after all...
I'd go, and then sit inside all of these. Seat comfort is a biggie. We are all shaped differently. Some people like high bolstering to hold them in place, others want a wider, flat seat with arm rests.
Another big issue is seat height. Depending on how tall you are, you may have to climb up. It's much easier to just slide in. Being high up does give you an edge in visibility, so that's the trade off.
Have you test-fitted any of these?
I think that seat comfort and ergonomics are probably even more important than an isolated ride for long trips.
Add the Hyundai Veracruz to your list. I was surprised at how comfortable the seat was. Much better than the Santa Fe or Entourage/Sedona seats.
I do leave the door open when I'm in it though otherwise the security guard might show up.
It turns out they had one that had not been sold yet and they didn't give me a call. The Internet Sales manager said he "lost my e-mail".
It was a silver CXL FWD, loaded with everything under the sun, including the 19" chrome wheels: 43K!!
Now, one thing I didn't expect, the half leather-half wood finish on the steering wheel is *AWFUL*. When we were maneuvering it in the parking lot, the sensation of touching wood with one hand and leather with the other was utterly unsettling. I can only imagine how dangerous it can get for those with sweaty palms.
I don't know. I have driven plenty of cars and trucks over the years with smooth plastic steering wheel finishes. Didn't like the feel all that much (cheap!), but never did it constitute anything dangerous.
19" chrome wheels are going to weight a *ton*. That's some serious unsprung weight. Watch out for ride, especially over potholes.
Not sure about Buick, but I do know Subaru uses real Zebrano wood on its LL Bean Outback, for instance, so some manufacturers do still use the real stuff.
I like the way it looks, not sure about the way it feels. I can see what you mean about the change of textures.
The ride should be smooth (we didn't drive it long, no time) over rough pavement. The heavy frame and relatively tall profile for the big tires absorb a lot of the vibrations. Suspension tunning is a high point in the lambdas.
The CX-9 GT I test-drove had 20" wheels and didn't feel bad over potholes. Of course, I am biased, because I drive my wife's Murano occasionally (talk about a harsh ride, even with 18"s. I can only imagine what the SE model feels like)
I have narrowed an early pre-cold weather search down to a Saturn Outlook, Hyundai Veracruz in a tie. Possibly a Pilot or Toyota RAV4 V6 or new Highlander. I am considering a Gr Cherokee V6 since my old I6 model has been pretty good to me. I am trying to limit the price to < $30k so other than the RAV4 that is a base model although Jeep has some pretty good rebates and the new lifetime drivetrain now. However, there are times (<5%) where a 3rd seat would be handy for getting all my adult kids & sig others in the same car. And I do have a need (again <5%) to tow a 2500 lb 17ft fishing boat. Initial opinions make me vote for the Outlook & possibly Pilot for towing, have not seen an 08 Highlander yet and while gorgious the Veracruz seems to polished for towing and the RAV4 a bit too small. Obviously the Jeep can do the tow, but I lose the 3rd seat & some mpg.
However my real question is: Are there any reviews on the internet comparing the attributes of these CUV's FWD-and-use-rear-wheels-when-needed AWD systems???
The Jeep w/Quad trac II will do the job but I don't really need the off roading, have rarely used that on my 01 JGC.
The Outlook has a towing button & 4500 lb rating implying better towing, but how will it do in a foot of snow? I have a friend w/a Pilot who is -very- impressed with the Honda AWD system pulling him through some gnarly back road glue.
How about Hyundai, or Toyotas system for snow readiness or pulling a water filled trailer out of the ramp??? Do either have a good factory tow package (Toyota dealer wants $800 for a warranty covered dealer add one which is insane! But will one I add @ UHaul void the warranty?).
Thanks in advance if any readers have experience with these!
Dave N in SE Minnesota
Let's keep this in the context of AWD, not 4WD, and limit the discussion to crossovers, as opposed to SUVs. You said you don't need to go off road, so most of those are seriously overkill anyway.
Ground clearance is a big issue but you can just look that up. More is better in snow, so you don't end up high centering. The higher-up crossovers have 8" or more of clearance.
Let's focus on the AWD systems themselves, and what criteria we can use to evaluate them.
Finally, pulling a water filled trailer out of the ramp sounds like a fairly heavy duty job, so you may want to look for rear-biased AWD systems, since the rear axle does all the heavy lifting (literally) on an uphill incline. How much does that trailer weigh?
This should get interesting. More to follow....
* is the front axle managed?
* is the rear axle managed?
* is the system engineered for full-time use?
* is the system proactive (vs. reactive)?
* can the system send all the power to either axle?
For example, Toyota (RAV4/Highlander):
YES. Traction control does that.
YES. Again, thanks to traction control.
NO. It's for slippery surfaces and part-time only.
NO. It's reactive.
NO. It cannot send 100% of power to the rear axle.
So Toyota meets 2/5 criteria.
In fact most crossovers only meet 2 out of 5. CR-V, Escape, Vue.
For the Ford/Volvo haldex-based systems, the answers are Y, Y, N, N, N. Haldex is still reactive, part-time, and limited in the torque distribution. It may react quicker, but other than that it's not better than Toyota's system. I believe this applies to the Mazda CX9 and the Ford Freestyle/Taurus X.
For Audi Quattro (torsen-based) and some VWs, the answer are Y, Y, Y, Y, and N. 4 out of 5. Why? Because Torsens have a bias ratio, for Audi it is 2 to 1. That means the system is limited to sending 67% of torque to either axle, at most.
Surprise, Subaru's VDC wins here. It can do all 5. But you can only get VDC on the high-end Outbacks and the Tribeca. The Tribeca can tow 3500 lbs and clears more than 8", so for your criteria it might be #1.
Honda Pilot's VTM-4 is part-time. The rear axle disengaged completely above a certain speed (29mph IIRC). I believe it only meets 2/5 of the criteria I listed.
Acura's SH-AWD is better, the one on the MDX. It's proactive and can actively shift power even side-to-side. It manages 3 out of 5 of those criteria, but it is proactive in a way that others aren't (to help get around corners). Call it 3.5/5, maybe.
BMW's X-drive can do 4/5. The only thing it cannot do it send all power to the front axle.
Same for Infiniti. They get 4/5.
Of all the ones I've mentioned, Subaru, BMW, and Infiniti are rear-wheel-biased, i.e. more than 50% of power goes to the rear axle by default. Those will be by far the best pulling that wet trailer up a slippery ramp.
Think about it - all the weight shifts to the rear axle when you're going up hill. Part-time AWD systems have to have the front axle slip first, then they react, shift power to the rear axle, and finally start making progess. Wheelspin is likely if the trailer is heavy.
Having said that, I believe the Lamdba's also have a part-time, FWD based system, so my guess is 2/5, and please correct me if I'm wrong folks.
Hyundai I'm not sure. I seem to recall the old Santa Fe could not engage both the AWD system and traction control at the same time, so it would fail to meet several criteria I listed. It might only meet 1/5 (front axle managed). I do not know if the Veracruz' system is any better, though, please share if anyone has more info on it.
Some good sources:
For differentials (torsen, viscous couplings, haldex, rotary blade couplings):
http://www.howstuffworks.com/differential.htm
For Subaru's VDC in particular (explains why it meets all 5 criteria):
http://210.101.116.115/fisita/pdf/G347.pdf
For 4WD/AWD systems in general:
http://www.4x4abc.com/4WD101/definition_all.html
Sadly I have not seen a good comparison test of AWD systems, but they evolve so quickly the info would get outdated very soon anyway.
Here's an article with a RAV4 that couldn't climb a steep slope. Part-time systems just aren't engineered for this:
http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=11004&vf=23
Sorry for the information overload. You asked. I'm an AWD enthusiast so I gather any sources and info I can find.
Please share articles related to specifics of the Lambda's AWD system if you come across any. Hyundai's too.
I don't consider it a problem, but yes, the FS CVT has the same characteristics. It seems when you take your foot off that the vehicle decelerates much slower than a conventional transmission. I use this for better MPG in town.
You are comparing apples to oranges. The Expedition is a body-on-frame, which is far heavier. That is the same construction as the Tahoe, for example. The Lamda is a unit-body construction.
Since you did the work for me on most of these, I went and did some skims on Hyundai & GM/Saturn.
Hyundai Tucson Motor Trend Trunk Trend
Front drive is standard on the entire line with electronic AWD a no-cost option on the Limited. This system normally routes up to 99 percent of the power to the front wheels, but can run 50 percent of the power to the rear as conditions change. The Tucson's center differential can be manually locked for an even 50/50 power split at speeds below 25 mph at the push of a button.
AUTOBLOG on 08 Veracruz AVAILABLE ELECTRONIC ALL WHEEL DRIVE
Hyundai has added an Intelligent Torque Controlled Coupling All Wheel Drive (AWD) system to propel Veracruz through the elements. Using wheel speed sensors to monitor the road and the driver, this electronic system can sense when and where more torque is required and route it there automatically. Power is transmitted to the rear wheels through a multi-plate clutch without any extra effort from the driver. An AWD lock mode can be engaged with the touch of a button, providing a 50:50 torque ratio when needed at low speeds.
SATURN OUTLOOK (ACADIA,ENCLAVE - their Lambda platform)
From Autoweek & others: The optional full-time awd system splits torque 60 percent to the front and 40 percent to the rear on dry pavement and adjusts when it detects slipping.
This from James Healy in USA Today: AWD system normally sends 10% of power to the rear wheels, 40% under hard acceleration, up to 100% if the front wheels have no traction; uses sensors to anticipate when to send power to rears, instead of waiting for fronts to slip.
Hmmm, those two sorta seem to contradict but both the 4500lb tow rating and some drive going to the rear wheels imply this may be the better occasional boat trailer hauler. And I know the salesman showed me a "Tow/Trailer" or 4WD button on the console, so I need to go back and look at that as I cannot find anymore info on the web.
It may be apples to oranges but he does have a point, other than the massive towing advantage for the Expedition (6000-9100lbs) and the ability to carry an extra passenger, there is not much practical difference between the two.
To preclude a comparison because of what is under the sheet-metal seems arbitrary. In fact that would be an advantage for the lambda as its ride is more comfortable and predictable than on the Expedition.
In fact, many of the dimensional differences (shoulder room, cargo space, track, wheelbase, towing capacity) between a lambda and the Expedition are *smaller* than the differences between a lambda and a Taurus X, and yet, we still compare both.
Not only that but it is usually more fruitful to compare things that are different than to compare things that are the same! Sorry - I couldn't resist!
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Really, a lambda does soething a TX can't- it can effectively replace the Expedition in someone's garage. The only thing one really gives up is towing, and a lot of Expedition owning families don't do that. Plus with a Lambda, you get car mileage,way better handling, and more cargo space, and your ride will be more comfortable. And (I guess this is a plus for some) no one will criticise you for driving a wimpy crossover, instead of a real man's SUV (some are like that).
So there's more than towing that might make an Expedition owner not want to downsize to a lambda. There's less overall interior space.
As far as MPG...the Expedition is rated at 19mpg highway as compared to 24hwy for the lambda. Depending on your budget, if you drive 15,000 miles at 19mpg you're paying about $500/year more than at 24mpg, or about $9.50/week. Significant to some, but then if you're paying $40K for a big SUV, you may be more interested in comfort, more interior space, and other features than downsizing to a lambda just to save $9.50/week.
You're forgetting the 10 extra cuft of cargo space you get in a lambda as opposed to base expy, and if you get the near 2 ft longer EL, you only gain 10-15 extra ft of cargo space over a lambda. I believe the third row advantage of expy to lambda is only 3 inches. So, overall, there IS more interior room in a lambda, which is almost half a foot shorter than the largest regular langth full size SUV (think of the smaller ones, like the Yukons and Armadas and Sequoias!).
This will definitely be cross shopped with full sized SUVs. That's the beauty of GM's crossovers. Though I'm not saying they are better than other crossovers, they do have the most flexiblity to go from replacing a vehicle like an MDX to replacing a vehicle like an Expedition. I don't think any other crossover can really effectively replace a full size SUV (a lot of that is because of it's dimensions- like width and height).