Are you a current Michigan-based car shopper? A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/2 for details.
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.
Anyone worried about $10 a week has no business investing $40k in a depreciating asset. For some of us the mpg isn't about $$ it's about trying to reduce how much gas we are using for personal reasons. For example, the Highlander is only remaining on my list because of the Hybrid option. We don't drive near enough to recoup the upfront costs in gas savings.
You're forgetting the 10 extra cuft of cargo space you get in a lambda as opposed to base expy, The behind the 3rd row space of the short Expedition 18.6CuFt and 19.7 in the lambda, so if you're using all three rows (and I thought that was the point of a three row vehicle), then the cargo space is about the same.
and if you get the near 2 ft longer EL, you only gain 10-15 extra ft of cargo space over a lambda Actually, you get 22.9CuFt more cargo space behind the 3rd row of the long Expedition versus the lambda, so I'm not sure where you're only getting an extra 15CuFt, when you have the 22.9 greater CuFt just behind the 3rd row (It's 42.6CuFt cargo space behind the 3rd row of the long Expedition).
Plus as I put in my previous post, there is the additional leg & hip space in Expedition. I'm not saying they won't be crossed shopped, just that there's more to an Expedition than simply towing capability. Yes the lambda CUVs are big, which will be a plus for some and a minus for others.
Yes and yes. That is, I am looking at and did (try) to sit in a 2008 Tribeca at the dealer yesterday. Unfortunately ALL their 7 models were loaded with not only leather but sunroofs. At 6'4", I rarely fit in anything with a sunroof and definitely not a Tribeca. The guy apologized for only having loaded models, but it's a great case where greed may have cost them the sale....I would have liked to try one as in readings this afternoon Subaru seems to have a pretty good AWD system, but I could barely get in the car even with the seat adjusted all the way to the lowest setting. And yes, thank for you for the EPA reference, it's making shopping an "event" looking at 2007 closeouts all looking much better but really not being that much better mpg than 2008.
For what it's worth since the Tribeca did not work & I needed to burn another hour while the wife was shopping, I did get to sit in a 2008 Highlander. Wow, nice car. Seems a bit overpriced and not real exciting, but it fit well.
I just wish I could find a V6 with decent mpg (22+ hiway) true 4WD 3 seater vehicle. Other than a Jeep Commander, which a few reviews have said stay away from the V6 being underpowered for a 5000 lb vehicle, not sure what that is going to be. I will keep reading & looking.
I dunno if that is the only choice - I am able to vanpool 4 of 5 days and my wife drives less than 8 miles round trip. Is a Hybrid your only choice? You can't live closer to where you need to go?
I get tired of the over arching argument that Hybrid always good. Anything else bad.
I dunno if that is the only choice - I am able to vanpool 4 of 5 days and my wife drives less than 8 miles round trip. Is a Hybrid your only choice? You can't live closer to where you need to go?
I get tired of the over arching argument that Hybrid always good. Anything else bad.
Not sure I understand your point. I live less than 5 miles from work, ride a bicycle to work often during the summer and only rack up about 6000 miles a year on my car. No, hybrid is not the only option, but if you know of another 6-7 passenger vehicle with 4WD that gets better than 20 mpg in city driving I'd love to hear about it. Oh yeah there aren't any. The Highlander Hybrid isn't my only consideration, but the compromises and cost of the gas Highlander mean it isn't on the list.
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.
I'll second that. I'm 6' tall and have sat in the third row of both an Acadia, Expedition, and Odyssey back to back to back at a car show. The Expedition was by far the roomiest and most comfortable. I felt I could sit back there for a cross-country trip with no problem. The other two were just so-so IMO. I didn't feel any more comfortable in the Acadia's 3rd row than I do in my Explorer's 3rd row and the Ody's was in the middle.
Let's not forget that the shape of the remaining cargo space plays a big role in what you can and cannot fit in the vehicle too. The Acadia may have a touch more cargo space than a short Expedition but has anyone compared the shape and actually tried to fit squared luggage into the space provided by 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).
That is exactly the reason we now own an Enclave and no longer have our Expedition.
As the two previous posts show, it's good there are choices. For some the lambda is too small, for some too big, and for others just right. Never any one right answer or better choice.
I think a lot of folks (myself included) could downsize, but we're paying the extra cost of vehicle price and poorer MPG for the added comfort of a bigger vehicle. All personal choices.
I'm 6' tall and have sat in the third row of both an Acadia, Expedition, and Odyssey back to back to back at a car show. The Expedition was by far the roomiest and most comfortable. I felt I could sit back there for a cross-country trip with no problem. The other two were just so-so IMO. I didn't feel any more comfortable in the Acadia's 3rd row than I do in my Explorer's 3rd row and the Ody's was in the middle.
Sorry, bud but there is no way the third row of an Expedition is more roomy than any full size minivan (like your Odysseys, or Siennas). I can easily sit in the back of a minivan, and the ride is so much more comfortable, but in the Expy, there is less room (number diff is about 4 inches). The third row of the Expedition is definitely closer to the Acadia. That's why I say going from the Expy to the Acadia would be so easy. They really feel almost the same space wise.
Actually, you get 22.9CuFt more cargo space behind the 3rd row of the long Expedition versus the lambda, so I'm not sure where you're only getting an extra 15CuFt, when you have the 22.9 greater CuFt just behind the 3rd row (It's 42.6CuFt cargo space behind the 3rd row of the long Expedition).
It's not that hard- the Expy EL has 130 cuft of cargo space, while the Acadia has 117. only 13cuft difference, and the car is 21 inches LONGER. Really, the dimensions of the Lamvdas vs the Expedition are give and take- take away half an inch of hip room here, get it here. Take away an inch of leg room here, get it here.
It's not my businss to tell the next guy what he needs, but if a family is just looking for an SUV for looks and space, a vehicle like the Expedition probably isn't the best choice.
I live less than 5 miles from work, ride a bicycle to work often during the summer and only rack up about 6000 miles a year on my car.
How did you get over 100k miles on your 3 year old Suburban then? You probably shouldn't be that worried about gas mileage. That's not even 500 miles a month! If you were to get a Honda Civic, you probably would fill up only once a month!!!!!
The third row of the Expedition is definitely closer to the Acadia. That's why I say going from the Expy to the Acadia would be so easy. They really feel almost the same space wise.
The third row of the Expy has over 4 more inches of legroom than the Acadia. That makes it closer to the Ody than the Acadia.
Sorry, bud but there is no way the third row of an Expedition is more roomy than any full size minivan (like your Odysseys, or Siennas).
How can you tell me I'm wrong about my opinion? :confuse: I'm just telling you how I saw it. When you're actually in there the numbers mean nothing because all of them are carved out differenly on the inside and no numbers tell you how they actually feel. YMMV.
I'm not sure what YMMV means, and I'm not sure how the lambda "carves out" as you call it their passenger CuFt, but post 3010 is by a guy who actually sat in the Expedition, Acadia and Odyssey, and his post passes my logic test more than some posts I've read.
Also, it's nice to say that the Expedition EL has only 13CuFt more passenger, based on how the Acadia "carves out" their passenger CuFt numbers, but the fact remains that the Expedition EL has 22.9CuFt MORE cargo space behind the 3rd row than the Acadia, so I guess you'll be putting the extra suitcases that don't fit behind the 3rd row of the Acadia on your passengers heads or where-ever that CuFt is located Yes, the EL is 18" longer than an Acadia, but it has a LOT more cargo space when you have three rows of people. And both the short and long version are wider inside and have more legroom. And I think the passengers will appreciate more leg and hip room more than some extra CuFt of airspace located somewhere (And I'm sure they include the space above the dash board too in their CuFt measurements!)
And if you re-read my post 2998, you'll see that the Expedition has 7" more legroom combined in the 2nd and 3rd rows. If you have some facts behind your opinion that they "carve out" CuFt numbers more accurately then hiproom and legroom numbers, I'm all ears.
Sorry, my point was when you drive so little the gains from a Hybrid may not be worth it and not just financially. So you save a few gallons of gas, there are other trade offs as well. What the heck do we do with the batteries when the care is used up?
IMHO a hybrid makes sense if I have a bit of a commute, and I have no other options vanpool, bike etc. Otherwise I will buy/drive what I want, not what Al Gore and others are trying to shame me into. :shades:
Meaning it's entirely possible two people the same size might find the same vehicle vastly different in terms of comfort. Even two people the same height might have completely different inseams...
Anyway, as far as dimensional measurements, they are absolute and not necessarily related to usability or human perception. A car can be wider "by the numbers" and still feel more cramped than a dimensionally smaller car. I can give you one SF shaped like a cube, and one SF shaped like a sphere, and you will find one or the other more suitable for a particular storage task. I could also give you one SF "by the numbers" that you can fit nothing larger than a matchbook into because of the way it's constructed or "carved out."
None of this is rocket science. And it's not about accuracy - there is no reason to believe a manufacturer is cooking the books. But a person's perception or opinion "is what it is..."
and I'm not sure how the lambda "carves out" as you call it their passenger CuFt, but post 3010 is by a guy who actually sat in the Expedition, Acadia and Odyssey, and his post passes my logic test more than some posts I've read.
Why does it pass your logic test? Because he basically agreed with the published numbers? :confuse:
Post #3005 was by a guy (me) who sat in all three back to back to back too and I felt differently. Go sit in them and tell us what you honestly think, otherwise please refrain from trying to prove someone's opinion/perception wrong because it is impossible to do so.
By the way, post 3010 was by a guy who is telling us that the Acadia and Expy are similar in size and therefore there is no reason for someone to buy an Expy over an Acadia (other than towing). Isn't that what you are trying to prove wrong? If you re-read my posts you'll see that I'm with you on that because I have sat in them too as I mentioned more than once now. :sick:
And if you re-read my post 2998, you'll see that the Expedition has 7" more legroom combined in the 2nd and 3rd rows. If you have some facts behind your opinion that they "carve out" CuFt numbers more accurately then hiproom and legroom numbers, I'm all ears.
What are you talking about? I was saying the same thing! Did you read the conversation at all? I was saying that the Expedition may have some smaller cargo numbers than the Acadia but I'm betting it still has a useable space advantage due to the way it is carved out, i.e. the shape of the interior, inside. The Acadia is more of a bubble with a slanted rear hatch whereas the Expy is a big block with a verticle hatch. I then asked if anyone has ever tried loading both with the same items to see if that holds true. Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't. But it does happen and I belive it was C&D who used to use beer cases to measure useable space. The results were sometimes surprising.
Tell me again why you are arguing with me when I'm trying to point out the same things as you? Basically that I think the Expy has a lot more room than the Acadia, despite the published numbers, based on my experience and my opinion after sitting in them (and a minivan).
Same goes for forums of the two vehicles I own too. Other dedicated Mustang forums are active but I don't do mods so I'm bored on those sometimes too. Apparently no one wants to talk about the Explorer either.
In April, I bought a Veracruz, but while I was shopping I had a pretty hard time deciding between the Veracruz, the CX-9, and the Acadia. I absolutely loved the looks of the Acadia the best, but thought the price was highish.
Well, I spent a week in San Diego, and what did our rental car turn out to be -- a brand new (12 miles on it!) Acadia. So we drove that around San Diego for the week and really got a much better sense of that vehicle than we did on our test drive.
Our conclusion at the end of the trip: THANK GOODNESS we bought the Veracruz.
Before the Veracruz, I drove a 1999 Dodge Durango. Our feeling was that the Acadia actually handled worse than the Durango (if that's possible). The turning radius was horrendous. It basically is just like an SUV so in my mind I'd just as well get an SUV and have the off road and towing capabilities that come with it.
Other than the turning radius being really poor, the vehicle had no pick up at all so it was very hard to drive on the California highways. It has numerous, significant blind spots making it hard to change lanes safely.
It's plenty roomy, but the rear seats are not nearly as comfortable as the Veracruz. My boys both thought the Veracruz comfort level was significantly higher even if it is a little more "cozy". I guess the main benefit of the Acadia is some more capacity in terms of cargo . . .but I think you'd be making a LOT of tradeoffs to get that extra cargo space. It may be better off to just get a roof carrier for your Veracruz ...
The standard stereo on the Acadia has very poor sound quality. I have the most basic stereo on the Veracruz, and it is pretty reasonable. Probably not for serious music lovers, but it is clear sounding. Not so with the Acadia.
The one thing we liked on the Acadia was the individual climate controls. But I wouldn't spend the extra money to have that feature . . .
Yes they did say that but the Veracruz did win the comparo. Mostly because of it's price, but couple that with it being "darn close" to the Lexus and you have a clear winner.
There is a difference between being better and being cheaper. The VC does look *really* good inside and out, but a "darn close" verdict is all one can expect from a magazine that published pearls like this in the past: 2 Pontiac GTO vs. Mercedes AMG55.
The VC did beat the new Highlander (a more suitable comparison) on at least one comparo.
If they threw the CX-9 against the RX they would probably close the article with an expressive "*pretty* darn close".
But the original posting did get me thinking about sound quality. Does the Acadia pack a Bose system? I know the Enclave and the CX-9 do.
What's the problem with the published pearl? They fess up to the fact that the gto is 85-90% of the clk for half the price. this is a similar analogy to the VC/RX comparo. Darn close for way less money seems a valid exercise as the prices of vehicles escalate.
"What have we learned? Like that svelte Hugo Boss, the Mercedes-Benz CLK55 AMG is a great-looking, beautifully engineered, top-quality piece that performs at a high level. And, like that other well-made, if mass-produced, suit, the Pontiac GTO provides perhaps 85 to 90 percent of the goodness--for less than 50 percent of the cost.
It isn't that this odd-duck matchup says anything disparaging about the CLK55. It just shows the praiseworthiness of the GTO. Proof positive that, depending on your taste and budget, less can sometimes be more."
seems a more than rational summary of their thoughts given the players compared.
It is a pearl in the same sense that the VC/RX comparison is.
People compare things to make a decision. Someone shopping for the CLK55 would have never considered buying a Pontiac, or Accord, or Toyota, you name it, but rather an M3, and S4, etc. Likewise, people shopping for a GTO probably could not have afforded a CLK55. In short, the comparison didn't help anyone make a decision, because there was none to be made in the first place.
Popular Mechanics actually did some decent, useful comparison, picking 6 vehicles with the same qualifications instead of what was sitting on the lot that day. It was informative to know how vehicles with 3 rows of seating stacked up against each other.
Just a few days before, they threw an Acadia against an Edge. Why not perform more useful tests with the same vehicles they had in hands around that time: "Edge vs. RX" or "Acadia vs. VC"? Or maybe toss in the VC in the "Acadia / CX-9 / MDX" test.
BTW: The CX-9 won both tests, so one must wonder why MT chose the VC instead...
I truelly can't tell you what is more comfortable than what, but how can you not notice the diference between the third row of the Ody,and Expy? next time you test, take some friends with you. They will probably understand. The seats are more comfortable too. I have niether sitting outside, but the Autoshow tells all.
Just because the Expedtiton is a complete box on the outside doesn't mean it has more usseable space inside. You can visibly tell jsut by eying the space behind the third row of an Expedition, vs the Acadia. It just looks like more. If you haven't noticed, the Acadia isn't really swoopy either, so cargo space is in no way carved out of it. You're probably just looking at the exterior of the Expy. But that doesn't always bleed into interior. Go to CD and find these results. i'd be happy to see them!
Yes they did say that but the Veracruz did win the comparo. Mostly because of it's price, but couple that with it being "darn close" to the Lexus and you have a clear winner.
That is all bull. I think the VC is a nice vehicle, and one of the better in this comparison, but you can easily tell where Lexus stops and Hyundai begins. It aint enough for them to put a lexus face on it. Kia did the same thing 5 years ago, and if you don't know what I'm talking about... exactly.
But that's not the point. The only reason MT did that was to get the Magazines off the shelves. What makes it clearer than the big HYUNDAI BEATS LEXUS on the top portion of the cover? They say stuff like "The VC came no where near the RX here- and performance really lagged there. The kind of stuff that made you want to say "HUH?" and reread the cover. THey did the same thing when they tested the Bimmer 3 vs the Infinity G. THey were licking their chops when they put "The king is dead" on the cover. It's slower, less refined and less luxurious, but it wins any way.
So, no- Hyundai isn't a clear winner- not a winner at all, but there is nothing wrong with comparing yourself to a bench mark. Hyundai can't be a real lusted after winner until they build cars that aren't copies of other winners. THat simple.
Maybe the spirit of the pearl wasn't so much of a cross shopping comparo as opposed to an illustration of how far some of the player's have come in the market which was summed up in the comments quoted from the gto/clk article.
Not your typical comparo but why not mix it up a bit to challenge peoples perceptions about things. That seems just as valid an exercise as any in an auto mag.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with copying benchmarks . . . after all, that's exactly what all of the Japanese manufacturers did for a long time when they came into this country in the late '60s and into the 70s.
I'm following this discussion of the comparison articles with interest. The key point that these folks need to sell magazines first and foremost rings true to me. I think these articles are targeted for a very specific type of buyer - the "value" buyer (of which I am one). I can afford a Lexus, but I'd never buy one. We own a Veracruz and an Infiniti G ...and I do think these vehicles have something in common. Lots of great features at a great price, but not the "brand name". I don't view my car as a status symbol, but I do want it to be comfortable, handle well, and have certain features that I need (3rd row bench seat, 4WD in a sedan). So maybe the major point of these comparison articles is to be appealing to buyers like me and my husband (so they'll buy the magazine that month!).
Perhaps you should look at some of the test results from the Popular Mechanics comparo and wonder why they chose the Mazda 1st.
Compared to the VC, which came in 2nd, the Mazda is barely faster by .06 seconds to 60 and by .07 seconds in the 1/4 mile, yet carries 296 fewer pounds. It also stops 3 feet longer from 60 to 0. However if you read Motorweek's reviews of both, the VC is the quicker of the 2, while the CX9 stops 4 feet shorter.
Watching the 2 videos it appears the VC has a little more 3rd row leg room, but its hard to tell as they don't show his leg distance from the 2nd row as they do in the CX9 video.
Two areas where the CX9 was better than the VC was being able to put the cooler behind the 3rd row and in handling - but is .1 g of lateral acceleration a big difference? I don't know and I doubt most people buying vehicles this size know. Where I live the roads are pretty straight so I can't imagine either vehicle would be any more fun to drive than the other.
As for MT's comparo of the VC and RX, that is actually a better comparo than the GTO vs CLK. A base RX can be had for about 40k. Of course a few option packages push the price into the mid 40s. Still, the price difference between a loaded VC and a similarly equipped RX will be about 6-8k. Definitely better than the price difference of the GTO-CLK comparo.
Will a RX shopper consider a VC? Probably not. But the comparo does show how far Hyundai has come in a very short amount of time. And copycat or not, it is definitely a strong player amongst the new CUVs.
It would definitely be great - and interesting - to see some mag/auto site out there do an in depth comparison of all the new CUVs on the market today. And not just a quick 20 minute test drive review. Keep the vehicle a month and put it thru its paces. Wouldn't that be more valuable to all of us?
That is all bull. I think the VC is a nice vehicle, and one of the better in this comparison, but you can easily tell where Lexus stops and Hyundai begins. It aint enough for them to put a lexus face on it. Kia did the same thing 5 years ago, and if you don't know what I'm talking about... exactly.
Don't shoot the messenger!!! I was just pointing out the results because I just got around to reading it in my copy not too long ago.
Personally I don't like either the VC or the RX. If they were the last two vehicles on earth I'd choose the VC over the Toyota any day.
I truelly can't tell you what is more comfortable than what, but how can you not notice the diference between the third row of the Ody,and Expy? next time you test, take some friends with you. They will probably understand. The seats are more comfortable too. I have niether sitting outside, but the Autoshow tells all.
But you did just try to tell me which one is more comfortable again.
I didn't like that I felt lower and more closed in in the Ody than I did in the Expy. Maybe it was the second row captains chairs in the Expy that made the difference but it was a noticeable difference to me nonetheless.
Just because the Expedtiton is a complete box on the outside doesn't mean it has more usseable space inside.
I never said it was. I simply provided that idea as food for thought and asked if someone ever tested my theory because I have not. Inquiring minds want to know!
Go to CD and find these results. i'd be happy to see them!
They don't do the beer case test anymore unfortunately. I think they stopped it a couple of years ago. MADD or someone probably got on their case. :surprise:
Watching the 2 videos it appears the VC has a little more 3rd row leg room,
Hard to tell, in the VC the host had to invade the neighboring seat space to fit in the 3rd row; not sure why since the numbers seem to favor the VC slightly. Also, when he reaches for the release handle, his left knee is visibly touching the back of the 2nd row.
Perhaps you should look at some of the test results from the Popular Mechanics comparo and wonder why they chose the Mazda 1st.
There is no wondering there. All performance numbers were virtually the same, and the interior fit and finish was in the same class, but the Mazda can carry more cargo when you are carrying 5-6 passengers. Actually, as the PM piece showed, if you want to carry anything bigger than a full sized luggage piece, you probably need to leave a passenger behind.
Not a trounce, but a win nevertheless, and not because the CX-9 was cheaper (it isn't).
And for 2008, the new 3.7 engine - still smaller than the 3.8 found in the VC - will deliver better numbers all around, untying all performance numbers with the same fuel economy.
Maybe the spirit of the pearl wasn't so much of a cross shopping comparo as opposed to an illustration of how far some of the player's have come in the market which was summed up in the comments quoted from the gto/clk article.
Maybe, but then again, why not a 5 seater comparison, Edge vs. RX? And then they compare the Edge against two 7-seaters (Acadia and a Suzuki XL7)? Hard to take MT seriously.
I think you have to take any mag/online review with a grain of salt. Its obvious that some has bias for or against certain makes/models.
I was just reading the motorweek reviews of the VC and CX-9 and they post the Energy Impact Score of both in their reviews. The CX9 is "moderate" at 19 barrels of oil per year, while the VC is "fairly high" at 19.1. Amazingly the Acadia is only 16.3.
That would be a good comparison, which is what Popular Mechanics attempted to do, but mostly focusing on practicality behind the 2nd row of seats. They had Pilot, Highlander, Outlook, VC, CX-9 and Tribeca.
"There is absolutely nothing wrong with copying benchmarks . . . after all, that's exactly what all of the Japanese manufacturers did for a long time when they came into this country in the late '60s and into the 70s."
With all due respect, are you older than 30? Anyone who lived in this period should know that the Japanese cars were popular because they were completely unlike the American cars. They were small, had fuel efficient engines, and handled reasonably well.
The American vehicles of the 1960-1976 period were dinosaurs with huge thirsty engines.
Why isn't anyone talking about the Endeavor? Isn't it based on the Galant. It is in about the same price range and has the same features. Or is it just too outdated to be in the talk because it has a 3.8L 225 hp V6 with a 4 speed auto.
The powertrain numbers may seem a bit dated, but torque peaks higher (250+ lb.ft.) at lower 3750 RPMs than most competitors, including the CX9 2007, the VC and the Pilot.
In short, the Endeavor can keep up with the pack. Maybe the exterior is to blame.
Comments
Anyone worried about $10 a week has no business investing $40k in a depreciating asset. For some of us the mpg isn't about $$ it's about trying to reduce how much gas we are using for personal reasons. For example, the Highlander is only remaining on my list because of the Hybrid option. We don't drive near enough to recoup the upfront costs in gas savings.
The behind the 3rd row space of the short Expedition 18.6CuFt and 19.7 in the lambda, so if you're using all three rows (and I thought that was the point of a three row vehicle), then the cargo space is about the same.
and if you get the near 2 ft longer EL, you only gain 10-15 extra ft of cargo space over a lambda
Actually, you get 22.9CuFt more cargo space behind the 3rd row of the long Expedition versus the lambda, so I'm not sure where you're only getting an extra 15CuFt, when you have the 22.9 greater CuFt just behind the 3rd row (It's 42.6CuFt cargo space behind the 3rd row of the long Expedition).
Plus as I put in my previous post, there is the additional leg & hip space in Expedition. I'm not saying they won't be crossed shopped, just that there's more to an Expedition than simply towing capability. Yes the lambda CUVs are big, which will be a plus for some and a minus for others.
Here's where you can see the figures for yourself:
http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/expedition/features/specs/
http://www.saturn.com/saturn/vehicles/outlook/pricing.jsp
And yes, thank for you for the EPA reference, it's making shopping an "event" looking at 2007 closeouts all looking much better but really not being that much better mpg than 2008.
For what it's worth since the Tribeca did not work & I needed to burn another hour while the wife was shopping, I did get to sit in a 2008 Highlander. Wow, nice car. Seems a bit overpriced and not real exciting, but it fit well.
I just wish I could find a V6 with decent mpg (22+ hiway) true 4WD 3 seater vehicle. Other than a Jeep Commander, which a few reviews have said stay away from the V6 being underpowered for a 5000 lb vehicle, not sure what that is going to be. I will keep reading & looking.
I get tired of the over arching argument that Hybrid always good. Anything else bad.
I get tired of the over arching argument that Hybrid always good. Anything else bad.
Not sure I understand your point. I live less than 5 miles from work, ride a bicycle to work often during the summer and only rack up about 6000 miles a year on my car. No, hybrid is not the only option, but if you know of another 6-7 passenger vehicle with 4WD that gets better than 20 mpg in city driving I'd love to hear about it. Oh yeah there aren't any. The Highlander Hybrid isn't my only consideration, but the compromises and cost of the gas Highlander mean it isn't on the list.
I'll second that. I'm 6' tall and have sat in the third row of both an Acadia, Expedition, and Odyssey back to back to back at a car show. The Expedition was by far the roomiest and most comfortable. I felt I could sit back there for a cross-country trip with no problem. The other two were just so-so IMO. I didn't feel any more comfortable in the Acadia's 3rd row than I do in my Explorer's 3rd row and the Ody's was in the middle.
Let's not forget that the shape of the remaining cargo space plays a big role in what you can and cannot fit in the vehicle too. The Acadia may have a touch more cargo space than a short Expedition but has anyone compared the shape and actually tried to fit squared luggage into the space provided by both?
That is exactly the reason we now own an Enclave and no longer have our Expedition.
I think a lot of folks (myself included) could downsize, but we're paying the extra cost of vehicle price and poorer MPG for the added comfort of a bigger vehicle. All personal choices.
Is that what people are seeing on Siennas and Freestyles as well?
Mazda is offering a $2500 discount on all 2007 CX-9, but there aren't many to choose from anyway, mostly AWD models with navigation.
GM is sticking to its guns, with 0 rebate on 2008 lambdas. Saturn still has the $1000 on 2007 Outlooks.
Sorry, bud but there is no way the third row of an Expedition is more roomy than any full size minivan (like your Odysseys, or Siennas). I can easily sit in the back of a minivan, and the ride is so much more comfortable, but in the Expy, there is less room (number diff is about 4 inches). The third row of the Expedition is definitely closer to the Acadia. That's why I say going from the Expy to the Acadia would be so easy. They really feel almost the same space wise.
It's not that hard- the Expy EL has 130 cuft of cargo space, while the Acadia has 117. only 13cuft difference, and the car is 21 inches LONGER. Really, the dimensions of the Lamvdas vs the Expedition are give and take- take away half an inch of hip room here, get it here. Take away an inch of leg room here, get it here.
It's not my businss to tell the next guy what he needs, but if a family is just looking for an SUV for looks and space, a vehicle like the Expedition probably isn't the best choice.
How did you get over 100k miles on your 3 year old Suburban then? You probably shouldn't be that worried about gas mileage. That's not even 500 miles a month! If you were to get a Honda Civic, you probably would fill up only once a month!!!!!
The third row of the Expy has over 4 more inches of legroom than the Acadia. That makes it closer to the Ody than the Acadia.
Sorry, bud but there is no way the third row of an Expedition is more roomy than any full size minivan (like your Odysseys, or Siennas).
How can you tell me I'm wrong about my opinion? :confuse: I'm just telling you how I saw it. When you're actually in there the numbers mean nothing because all of them are carved out differenly on the inside and no numbers tell you how they actually feel. YMMV.
Also, it's nice to say that the Expedition EL has only 13CuFt more passenger, based on how the Acadia "carves out" their passenger CuFt numbers, but the fact remains that the Expedition EL has 22.9CuFt MORE cargo space behind the 3rd row than the Acadia, so I guess you'll be putting the extra suitcases that don't fit behind the 3rd row of the Acadia on your passengers heads or where-ever that CuFt is located
And if you re-read my post 2998, you'll see that the Expedition has 7" more legroom combined in the 2nd and 3rd rows. If you have some facts behind your opinion that they "carve out" CuFt numbers more accurately then hiproom and legroom numbers, I'm all ears.
IMHO a hybrid makes sense if I have a bit of a commute, and I have no other options vanpool, bike etc. Otherwise I will buy/drive what I want, not what Al Gore and others are trying to shame me into. :shades:
just keep making bush and his oil cronies richer...yeah that's the ticket...
Meaning it's entirely possible two people the same size might find the same vehicle vastly different in terms of comfort. Even two people the same height might have completely different inseams...
Anyway, as far as dimensional measurements, they are absolute and not necessarily related to usability or human perception. A car can be wider "by the numbers" and still feel more cramped than a dimensionally smaller car. I can give you one SF shaped like a cube, and one SF shaped like a sphere, and you will find one or the other more suitable for a particular storage task. I could also give you one SF "by the numbers" that you can fit nothing larger than a matchbook into because of the way it's constructed or "carved out."
None of this is rocket science. And it's not about accuracy - there is no reason to believe a manufacturer is cooking the books. But a person's perception or opinion "is what it is..."
Why does it pass your logic test? Because he basically agreed with the published numbers? :confuse:
Post #3005 was by a guy (me) who sat in all three back to back to back too and I felt differently. Go sit in them and tell us what you honestly think, otherwise please refrain from trying to prove someone's opinion/perception wrong because it is impossible to do so.
By the way, post 3010 was by a guy who is telling us that the Acadia and Expy are similar in size and therefore there is no reason for someone to buy an Expy over an Acadia (other than towing). Isn't that what you are trying to prove wrong? If you re-read my posts you'll see that I'm with you on that because I have sat in them too as I mentioned more than once now. :sick:
And if you re-read my post 2998, you'll see that the Expedition has 7" more legroom combined in the 2nd and 3rd rows. If you have some facts behind your opinion that they "carve out" CuFt numbers more accurately then hiproom and legroom numbers, I'm all ears.
What are you talking about? I was saying the same thing! Did you read the conversation at all? I was saying that the Expedition may have some smaller cargo numbers than the Acadia but I'm betting it still has a useable space advantage due to the way it is carved out, i.e. the shape of the interior, inside. The Acadia is more of a bubble with a slanted rear hatch whereas the Expy is a big block with a verticle hatch. I then asked if anyone has ever tried loading both with the same items to see if that holds true. Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't. But it does happen and I belive it was C&D who used to use beer cases to measure useable space. The results were sometimes surprising.
Tell me again why you are arguing with me when I'm trying to point out the same things as you? Basically that I think the Expy has a lot more room than the Acadia, despite the published numbers, based on my experience and my opinion after sitting in them (and a minivan).
Well, I spent a week in San Diego, and what did our rental car turn out to be -- a brand new (12 miles on it!) Acadia. So we drove that around San Diego for the week and really got a much better sense of that vehicle than we did on our test drive.
Our conclusion at the end of the trip: THANK GOODNESS we bought the Veracruz.
Before the Veracruz, I drove a 1999 Dodge Durango. Our feeling was that the Acadia actually handled worse than the Durango (if that's possible). The turning radius was horrendous. It basically is just like an SUV so in my mind I'd just as well get an SUV and have the off road and towing capabilities that come with it.
Other than the turning radius being really poor, the vehicle had no pick up at all so it was very hard to drive on the California highways. It has numerous, significant blind spots making it hard to change lanes safely.
It's plenty roomy, but the rear seats are not nearly as comfortable as the Veracruz. My boys both thought the Veracruz comfort level was significantly higher even if it is a little more "cozy". I guess the main benefit of the Acadia is some more capacity in terms of cargo . . .but I think you'd be making a LOT of tradeoffs to get that extra cargo space. It may be better off to just get a roof carrier for your Veracruz ...
The standard stereo on the Acadia has very poor sound quality. I have the most basic stereo on the Veracruz, and it is pretty reasonable. Probably not for serious music lovers, but it is clear sounding. Not so with the Acadia.
The one thing we liked on the Acadia was the individual climate controls. But I wouldn't spend the extra money to have that feature . . .
The VC did beat the new Highlander (a more suitable comparison) on at least one comparo.
If they threw the CX-9 against the RX they would probably close the article with an expressive "*pretty* darn close".
But the original posting did get me thinking about sound quality. Does the Acadia pack a Bose system? I know the Enclave and the CX-9 do.
"What have we learned? Like that svelte Hugo Boss, the Mercedes-Benz CLK55 AMG is a great-looking, beautifully engineered, top-quality piece that performs at a high level. And, like that other well-made, if mass-produced, suit, the Pontiac GTO provides perhaps 85 to 90 percent of the goodness--for less than 50 percent of the cost.
It isn't that this odd-duck matchup says anything disparaging about the CLK55. It just shows the praiseworthiness of the GTO. Proof positive that, depending on your taste and budget, less can sometimes be more."
seems a more than rational summary of their thoughts given the players compared.
It is a pearl in the same sense that the VC/RX comparison is.
People compare things to make a decision. Someone shopping for the CLK55 would have never considered buying a Pontiac, or Accord, or Toyota, you name it, but rather an M3, and S4, etc. Likewise, people shopping for a GTO probably could not have afforded a CLK55. In short, the comparison didn't help anyone make a decision, because there was none to be made in the first place.
Popular Mechanics actually did some decent, useful comparison, picking 6 vehicles with the same qualifications instead of what was sitting on the lot that day. It was informative to know how vehicles with 3 rows of seating stacked up against each other.
Just a few days before, they threw an Acadia against an Edge. Why not perform more useful tests with the same vehicles they had in hands around that time: "Edge vs. RX" or "Acadia vs. VC"? Or maybe toss in the VC in the "Acadia / CX-9 / MDX" test.
BTW: The CX-9 won both tests, so one must wonder why MT chose the VC instead...
And people complain about CR...
Just because the Expedtiton is a complete box on the outside doesn't mean it has more usseable space inside. You can visibly tell jsut by eying the space behind the third row of an Expedition, vs the Acadia. It just looks like more. If you haven't noticed, the Acadia isn't really swoopy either, so cargo space is in no way carved out of it. You're probably just looking at the exterior of the Expy. But that doesn't always bleed into interior. Go to CD and find these results. i'd be happy to see them!
That is all bull. I think the VC is a nice vehicle, and one of the better in this comparison, but you can easily tell where Lexus stops and Hyundai begins. It aint enough for them to put a lexus face on it. Kia did the same thing 5 years ago, and if you don't know what I'm talking about... exactly.
But that's not the point. The only reason MT did that was to get the Magazines off the shelves. What makes it clearer than the big HYUNDAI BEATS LEXUS on the top portion of the cover? They say stuff like "The VC came no where near the RX here- and performance really lagged there. The kind of stuff that made you want to say "HUH?" and reread the cover. THey did the same thing when they tested the Bimmer 3 vs the Infinity G. THey were licking their chops when they put "The king is dead" on the cover. It's slower, less refined and less luxurious, but it wins any way.
So, no- Hyundai isn't a clear winner- not a winner at all, but there is nothing wrong with comparing yourself to a bench mark. Hyundai can't be a real lusted after winner until they build cars that aren't copies of other winners. THat simple.
Not your typical comparo but why not mix it up a bit to challenge peoples perceptions about things. That seems just as valid an exercise as any in an auto mag.
Compared to the VC, which came in 2nd, the Mazda is barely faster by .06 seconds to 60 and by .07 seconds in the 1/4 mile, yet carries 296 fewer pounds. It also stops 3 feet longer from 60 to 0. However if you read Motorweek's reviews of both, the VC is the quicker of the 2, while the CX9 stops 4 feet shorter.
Watching the 2 videos it appears the VC has a little more 3rd row leg room, but its hard to tell as they don't show his leg distance from the 2nd row as they do in the CX9 video.
Two areas where the CX9 was better than the VC was being able to put the cooler behind the 3rd row and in handling - but is .1 g of lateral acceleration a big difference? I don't know and I doubt most people buying vehicles this size know. Where I live the roads are pretty straight so I can't imagine either vehicle would be any more fun to drive than the other.
As for MT's comparo of the VC and RX, that is actually a better comparo than the GTO vs CLK. A base RX can be had for about 40k. Of course a few option packages push the price into the mid 40s. Still, the price difference between a loaded VC and a similarly equipped RX will be about 6-8k. Definitely better than the price difference of the GTO-CLK comparo.
Will a RX shopper consider a VC? Probably not. But the comparo does show how far Hyundai has come in a very short amount of time. And copycat or not, it is definitely a strong player amongst the new CUVs.
It would definitely be great - and interesting - to see some mag/auto site out there do an in depth comparison of all the new CUVs on the market today. And not just a quick 20 minute test drive review. Keep the vehicle a month and put it thru its paces. Wouldn't that be more valuable to all of us?
Don't shoot the messenger!!! I was just pointing out the results because I just got around to reading it in my copy not too long ago.
Personally I don't like either the VC or the RX. If they were the last two vehicles on earth I'd choose the VC over the Toyota any day.
But you did just try to tell me which one is more comfortable again.
I didn't like that I felt lower and more closed in in the Ody than I did in the Expy. Maybe it was the second row captains chairs in the Expy that made the difference but it was a noticeable difference to me nonetheless.
Just because the Expedtiton is a complete box on the outside doesn't mean it has more usseable space inside.
I never said it was. I simply provided that idea as food for thought and asked if someone ever tested my theory because I have not. Inquiring minds want to know!
Go to CD and find these results. i'd be happy to see them!
They don't do the beer case test anymore unfortunately. I think they stopped it a couple of years ago. MADD or someone probably got on their case. :surprise:
Hard to tell, in the VC the host had to invade the neighboring seat space to fit in the 3rd row; not sure why since the numbers seem to favor the VC slightly. Also, when he reaches for the release handle, his left knee is visibly touching the back of the 2nd row.
Perhaps you should look at some of the test results from the Popular Mechanics comparo and wonder why they chose the Mazda 1st.
There is no wondering there. All performance numbers were virtually the same, and the interior fit and finish was in the same class, but the Mazda can carry more cargo when you are carrying 5-6 passengers. Actually, as the PM piece showed, if you want to carry anything bigger than a full sized luggage piece, you probably need to leave a passenger behind.
Not a trounce, but a win nevertheless, and not because the CX-9 was cheaper (it isn't).
And for 2008, the new 3.7 engine - still smaller than the 3.8 found in the VC - will deliver better numbers all around, untying all performance numbers with the same fuel economy.
If the VC beat the RX, a CX9 would cream it.
Maybe, but then again, why not a 5 seater comparison, Edge vs. RX? And then they compare the Edge against two 7-seaters (Acadia and a Suzuki XL7)? Hard to take MT seriously.
I was just reading the motorweek reviews of the VC and CX-9 and they post the Energy Impact Score of both in their reviews. The CX9 is "moderate" at 19 barrels of oil per year, while the VC is "fairly high" at 19.1. Amazingly the Acadia is only 16.3.
With all due respect, are you older than 30? Anyone who lived in this period should know that the Japanese cars were popular because they were completely unlike the American cars. They were small, had fuel efficient engines, and handled reasonably well.
The American vehicles of the 1960-1976 period were dinosaurs with huge thirsty engines.
In short, the Endeavor can keep up with the pack. Maybe the exterior is to blame.