It is to the Enlave's credit that people even cross shop the two. The Audi is a major heavy duty, expensive, and cff-road capable machine that in the end, does not look much different in specs and capabilities from the lambda. However, the price difference is rather large. If you want the 07 and third row, you go with the up line 4.2 V8. Those start at $60,000.
The 3.6 V6 Q7 is also quite capable, having 280 hp and a towing capacity of 6600 lbs. However, you couldn't get a third row seat in 07. It is offered in 08, but the price is back up close to $50,000, with the typical equipment the third seat models will demand. Thus, if you can find an 07 4.2 with third row, priced somewhere near a loaded Enclave, then you have found a bargain.
It is all tradeoffs of course. The Audi is arguably "butch-er" looking, and at the same time more refined. They are about the same size (the Buick is an inch and a half longer and an inch wider, and they weigh about the same), but the Audi looks more balanced on its wheelbase (or at least the rear wheels don't have that exaggerated pulled-far-back look GM manages to create with the lambdas). For the lambda look, you get far more 3rd row room.
Anyway, in a year's time from purchase, the Audi will definitely garner more respect and return more tactile satisfaction than the Enclave. BUt for people who don't care that much about "status," the Enclave will win on practically every count save resale.
If I were in this market and could find an Audi Q7 at the same price, I'd grab it and not care about the difference in cost for gas. It won't be that much, with super premium just 20 cents more (and even closer by filling every other time with mid-grade). If I had several kids and all the stuff that goes with transporting them these days, hands down, it would be the lambda. Why would you want two kids puking up in an Audi anyway? :P
or you can forsake all the bells and whistles options short of the 3rd row option and still have a very nice base well equipped 3.6l q7 for $40,590 + tax/title/license + hitch cost which is well equipped lambda money that has more than enough towing capacity it seems. it just may be a little harder to find such a model on a lot, it might have to be ordered in that configuration if your heart is set on the q7.
the 07 q7 audi configurator allows the 3rd row option on the base model and I can't find a 6600lb rating on the website, where'd you find that, all i could find was the 5500lb number i posted.
You can find many 07 Q7's out there, I missed out on a 3.6 premium w/leather, moonroof, 6 disc cd, and a third row seat ( it is an option on the 07's) and it was $39,995. The towing capacity is under the specs, FYI.
Your rude remarks are getting old, find a hobby or something. If you don't like what I have to say, why are you still here? I think if you are not going to be here for the purpose intended like the hosts suggested, move on.
What was rude, in one instance you say you tow more than 4500lbs which is more than the lambda is rated, then you say its only a little more, that's a moving target.
you load up the lambda with family and stuff for a boating weekend, you add towing a boat that is more than the rated max of the lambda and you think that's OK, up to you, whatever, and then going to tell me that makes sense or is safe. instead you can spend the same money for the q and gain 1k lbs towing capacity that'll give you more of a safety margin when towing a 4500+lb boat with a loaded q.
indeed, what is the point of tow ratings if you aren't going to pay attention to them. one car you narrowed down to meets your criteria, one doesn't on that basis alone. the prices seem to be in line with each other so that no longer is part of the equation and its even the one you liked more to begin with...
seems like the audi is the better choice given the fact you finally indicated that you tow a boat. if you don't want a vehicle that meets your towing requirements safely that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense but it's your money.
I think she likely had her mind set on the Audi, but wants valid reasons why she shouldn't buy it. Heck, at the $39k price she mentioned, I would have bought the Audi! Guess she missed that chance, though.
I'm with you, though, on towing: if you're going to have the car full of people and gear, and then tow right up to the limit, I'd be a little worried (mainly because I tend to drive a little fast). Is there a towing forum on Edmunds?
A counterpoint to that argument is that the study is for 2004 vehicles and the world has changed a lot in the past 3 years. Or could anyone anticipate Hyundai building something that could challenge a Lexus on almost, if not identical, footing?
Audi also scored poorly in that survey, and yet the Q7 scored much better than Audi's rating would suggest.
The top ratings for Buick vs. the middling ratings for Saturn/GM/GMC are curious at least, with all the GM badge engineering and sharing of power plants.
As a quick exercise, list the ratings for the Mazda 3 for model years 2004 through 2006. The comfort rating goes from 4 to 2 stars without any changes to the interior. What gives?
All that said, I am really curious about the initial ratings for the CX-9, which remain unavailable. I like to use TSBs and recalls as a better indication of quality.
I am now slightly confused about the Enclave's choice given your mention to towing more than 4500lbs. Even the 3.6 Q7 will be hard-pressed to haul all that load around in safety, but somehow I am assuming you are keeping that Tahoe around :-)
If you really like the CX-9, one option to consider is to phone your local Ford dealer and ask whether they would service it. The powertrain is mostly shared with many other Ford vehicles and you would only have to drive farther for non-scheduled non-mechanical problems.
I did have the opposite arrangement a few years ago, taking a Ford Focus for service at the local Mazda dealer (long story.) They even performed some of the recalls.
"Even the 3.6 Q7 will be hard-pressed to haul all that load around in safety"
how do you figure that, its got a load rating and a tow rating the engineers took into account and rate it for. while it won't be able to make its unladen 8.2sec sprint to 60 it should be up to the task given it's ratings to tow safely driven accordingly.
She mentioned hoping she wasn't downsizing too much. from that I would suspect the tahoe was/is going to be a trade-in or for sale privately since the husband is only ever going to be driving his buicks. just a shot in the dark though.
how come all the cx love despite it clearly not even being close to the towing ability the OP needs and being offered up after she clearly narrowed her choices down to the two parties...
Host, You can go ahead and close this if you like, I have gotten all I need here!
I'm not seeing where the title changed to "Crossover CUV Comparison for jc8". Did I miss something?
I'm with the others. If you're towing 4500+ lbs and a cabin full of adults, kids, and all the gear that goes with both in a Lamda, then please stay off the highways I travel. I see enough carnage on the news.
how come all the cx love despite it clearly not even being close to the towing ability the OP needs and being offered up after she clearly narrowed her choices down to the two parties...
She did mention that her husband liked the CX-9 a lot, but there was not a Mazda dealer near their location. Since she did not specifically mentioned she was trading in the Tahoe, I thought rude to inquire about an otherwise private matter and offered what could be useful advice.
Who knows? Maybe her husband would like to trade that Buick of his in a CX-9 in the future. Maybe not.
The alternative, of course, is to always assume other people's assumptions wrong and fish for an argument, and laugh inside, and out, with a whooshing "false sense of overdoneness".
BUT APPARANTLY YOU EITHER FAILED TO OR DIDN'T WANT TO SEE THE CONTRADICTIONS IN HER POSTS REGARDING HER TOWING REQUIREMENTS. ONE POST STATES SHE TOWS MORE THAN 4500LBS HENCE THE NEED FOR THE TAHOE, THE NEXT POST STATES WELL IT'S JUST A BIT MORE THAN THE 4500LB RATING... WHICH IS IT, EITHER WAY SHE'S CONSIDERING A VEHICLE THAT DOES NOT MEET HER STATED TOWING NEEDS. HOW IS SAYING THAT'S A MOVING TARGET RUDE, DID I CALL HER A NAME OR ATTACK HER PERSONALLY NO, I JUST POINTED OUT INCONSISTENCY IN HER COMMENTS JUST LIKE YOU FOLKS DO ALL THE TIME WITH ME, HAVE I ONCE CALLED YOU FOLKS RUDE. NO...
YET THAT MAKES ME THE PARIAH... DO YOU WANT HER ROLLING DOWN AN INCLINED ROAD TOWARDS YOUR FAMILY IN WHATEVER YOU DRIVE WITH AN OVERLADEN LAMBDA FULLY LOADED WITH FAMILY/STUFF FOR THE WEEKEND AND A BOAT THAT WEIGHS MORE THAN THE MAX TOW RATING OF THE CAPABLE ENCLAVE...
I MAY BE A LITTLE ORNARY AROUND HERE BUT TO THINK THAT MAKES ANY SENSE IS MORE THAN A LITTLE IRRESPONSIBLE. BUT IF ANYONE ELSE POINTED THAT OUT IT'D BE ALL HIGH FIVES AND GOOD POINT...
SORRY FOR ALL CAPS, TYPED WITHOUT REALIZING...WASN'T TRYING TO "SHOUT"
I think she should get a CX-9 (I admit I'm a happy owner) and trade in the big heavy boat for a nice lightweight sailboat. I can hardly tell there's anything hooked up when I'm towing mine...
I don't think it's too bad compared to what I had before (GMC truck w/topper) as long as you're used to using the side view mirrors when backing up. The rear quarter view and rear window is relatively high though. One thing I do appreciate is that when the DVD screen is folded down, it doesn't obstruct the view looking out the rearview mirror. We also have a Camry, and I actually feel a bit more comfortable with the rear view backing up my CX-9 when parking...
I don't often agree with freealfas, but I believe, in this case, he's absolutely right. I also don't think he was rude. If anything, it seemed like the OP was being argumentative.
I don't think tow ratings are to be taken lightly, and I don't want a tow vehicle/trailer that is at or near the GCWR coming at me down the highway. The only way I can see a lambda pulling a boat that's a 'little more' than 4500# is if there's minimal gas in the boat, only a driver, and little or no accessories. Load everything up for an outing, and I'm sure you'll be way over the GCWR.
Looking at the new Accord release, I can tell that the new Pilot will be a step up. What could this mean for the competition. We are about to really see if the newbies are ready to take on the big boys (cuz I have a weird feeling that the Highlander blow over was a truee stroke of luck. i mean come on- what was Toyota thinking?).
I agree, in reality there are two categories of CUV's in the market right now, and they are defined by length: the 190" crowd and the 200" crowd.
Those 10" are the difference between carrying 6-7 people and their luggage on longer trips versus having a 5-seater that can occasionally double as a short-range minivan replacement.
There are fewer contenders in the 200" category, which includes (in my count) the lambdas, TX, CX9, Q7, and R series. Discount the two last in the list for those who want to stay below 40K and there isn't really much competition.
agree, in reality there are two categories of CUV's in the market right now, and they are defined by length: the 190" crowd and the 200" crowd.
Not necessarily. The current Pilot almost has the space of a lambda. It's only the legroom that's smaller by a few inches, and the behind the 3rd row cargo space is only a few CuFt less too. In it's current version it can hold 8 people, even though 1/2 of those 8 better be kids that are not in carseats! But most of the time I'd think that it's unlikely anyone was carrying 8 passengers and all of their cargo
I've said in previous posts I think the passenger volume CuFt is not as accurate as legroom/hiproom dimensions, and yet some people here claim that the passenger CuFt measurement to be more accurate. If that's the case, since the passenger CuFt of the Pilot and lambda are equal, then I guess they both have the same space inside....yet the legroom inches are greater in the lambda and it's hard to believe that the current Pilot and lambda would each carry 8 in the same level of comfort. That's why measurement such as legroom give you a better idea of comfort level than a general CuFt measurement.
That's why measurement such as legroom give you a better idea of comfort level than a general CuFt measurement.
I disagree, I think it emphasizes that dimension measurements are broad classifiers at best. Parking your behind in the seats is the only way to guage comfort. Unfortunately, our behinds and legs differ so it won't end any disagreements either. The cooler test was what I really liked about the Popular M. reviews. Who cares how many cu ft there are, can you use them?
I agree with you that neither passenger CuFt nor legroom inches are the best, but if you compare the two, then I think the legroom inches is a better measure. So I was only comparing the two.
You're right, it's better just to sit in them. I wish more car reviewers actually filled the car full of people for their tests. I have yet to see a photo of three adults sitting in the 3rd row of lambda, with three adults in the 2nd row as well. There's just a lot of talk on how big they are. It's the same with the CX9, Pilot, or pick your vehicle. It would be nice to see some people in these cars.
Or do comparison of taking 4 suitcases and putting them behind the 3rd row of each of these CUVs and taking a picture of the final result. That would give you a better impression and a better way to compare versus CuFt.
I am biased because it's the drum I've beaten before, but it was nice to see someone actually putting something inside the vehicle as part of their review. I think they went too easy on the Highlander and should have taken away more points for its lack of function. Still, it's the only review I've read that was the least bit critical of that rear bench. They said it was a "club" of 7-8 passenger vehicles. With the Highlander you can comfortably seat 6 people and a box of tissues. I say six because I would not wish that middle cushion thingy in the second row on anyone, even a child for more than a few minutes. I know because I sat on it. Plus you have to be a contortionist to do up the seatbelt and then two sets of latches dig into your hips - and I have a 33 inch waist so I'm not a wide load. If you have any luggage, it can only seat 4 people comfortably. So if you are looking for a big CUV to carry 4 passengers and luggage the Highlander is a good choice. For function it can only compete with the 3rd row as an afterthought crowd. Big disappointment to me, I had high hopes for it.
"If you are looking for a big CUV to carry 4 passengers and luggage the Highlander is a good choice"
I think that's exactly the market Toyota is looking for with the Highlander. The 3rd row is just there (and on the RAV4) just for those occasions when you need to carry a couple more people for short drives. I don't think Toyota built the Highlander with a family of 7 in mind going on long road trips...they have the Sienna for that, or the Sequoia. And considering most families consist of 2 adults and 2 kids, than there's a pretty big market for this type of vehicle, as the sales figures show.
I'm glad they kept it small. Remember it's 13" shorter than a lambda and not as wide. The Sequoia is about the same size as the lamdas, but it does have less MPG than the lambdas. The Highlander is really just the station wagon Camry.
BTW...153CuFt is the passenger volume of BOTH the Pilot and lambdas.
As long as it's agreed there is NO WAY that the Pilot can seat 6-8 as comfortably as the lambdas. It's physically impossible. The Pilot's third row is, though better than the Highlander and Tribeca, small.
It's only the legroom that's smaller by a few inches, and the behind the 3rd row cargo space is only a few CuFt less too.
A few inches less in the rear seat and a few CuFt less in the trunk is also what separates an Accord from a Civic. I think the PM video said, or showed, it all.
I agree that neither should carry 3 passengers on a long trip back there, specially because 15-20 CuFt of cargo for 8 people would be completely inadequate anyway.
I've sat inside a Pilot, but not in 3rd row (I am 6ft tall and the other passengers took pity on me.) It is really squarish inside, which helps passenger space as the canopy doesn't get narrower at the top.
I don't understand how the Vera Cruz beat the Outlook. I mean, there may some ups to the Hyundai, but they didn't give any. Gave me the impression of "the Outlook is bigger, and more comfortable, but lets go with the Vera Cruz".
And where was the Taurus X in this little comparison?
Seems to me that it's the size of the Outlook that was its downfall: too big. They even used the word "minivan" to describe it (which I guess is fair, since it is a minivan replacement). And they made a point to complain about the transmission issue (gear hunting, holds gears too long, etc)
Doesn't really matter: people that are trading in traditional body-on-frame SUVs will likely never consider the Veracruz, so I don't think the Outlook will suffer because of this article (although it will suffer because it's a Saturn ;-) )
BTW...153CuFt is the passenger volume of BOTH the Pilot and lambdas. As long as it's agreed there is NO WAY that the Pilot can seat 6-8 as comfortably as the lambdas.
Agree...and that passenger CuFt numbers don't mean too much since
In terms of interior space, just adding to the discussion, Honda lists 149 CuFt for passenger space, which is practically the same as in the lambdas; but it lists only 88 CuFt for cargo space vs 117 for the lambdas.
There are 4 CuFt less of space behind the 3rd row, 15.9 vs 19.7.
Interestingly enough, short of legroom, the Pilot beat the lambdas in every other 3rd row seat measurement. In the end, hip room is probably the limiting factor for sitting 3 adults across. At 20" per hip, there is no way anyone can fit three adults within 48 of width. But 3 kids when car pooling for school should be a breeze.
To the happiness of TX fans, I find one big advantage in its cargo carrying capacity that I really like, which is that folding front passenger seat. You can fit 10ft pieces inside the car (such as a handful of crown molding pieces or a latter).
I know that the lambdas and the CX-9 don't have it. Does any other CUV have it?
I just got this car..I love this car. I am very glad I did not get public transportion cars such as Toyota Sienna and Honda Odyessy. They are both great cars, but everyone drive the cars..
After I test drove many cars for last 6 months, I came across to CX9. I had no idea what this car was and I accidently saw on the street. So I decided to visit Mazda dealer and after that I could not walk away from this car..This car combine of Lexus and acura TL. I really want to get Acura TL, but I had to get family car since I have 2 daughers. This car was perfect since it drives like Acura while it feel like lexus and roomy for my kids.
Only compliants are MPG,and better design on front side since back looks great.
Doesn't really matter: people that are trading in traditional body-on-frame SUVs will likely never consider the Veracruz,
The lease on my father-in-law's '06 Explorer is up (he leased it in late summer 2005) and he's dead set on replacing it with a Veracruz. I showed him his other options but he didn't care for any of them. I too will consider a VC when our Explorer lease is up too so I'm curious as to why you would make that comment?
Married and 3 kids ages 8 to almost 2. We got an Outlook. We also take an elderly grandparent with us quite often. We have more than enough space in it.
You got me: I meant to write, "people that are trading in LARGE traditional body-on-frame SUVs will likely never consider the Veracruz"
By large I mean Tahoe-sized, etc. Of course you could take exception to that comment as well, but from reading the forums it has become very apparent to me that people don't want to downsize, even though they don't need the room.
The Outlook/Acadia is also more chunky looking, like a traditional SUV. The Veracruz is curvy in comparison, and again, that seems to be a negative with those large SUV buyers (based on reading the forums).
Comments
The 3.6 V6 Q7 is also quite capable, having 280 hp and a towing capacity of 6600 lbs. However, you couldn't get a third row seat in 07. It is offered in 08, but the price is back up close to $50,000, with the typical equipment the third seat models will demand. Thus, if you can find an 07 4.2 with third row, priced somewhere near a loaded Enclave, then you have found a bargain.
It is all tradeoffs of course. The Audi is arguably "butch-er" looking, and at the same time more refined. They are about the same size (the Buick is an inch and a half longer and an inch wider, and they weigh about the same), but the Audi looks more balanced on its wheelbase (or at least the rear wheels don't have that exaggerated pulled-far-back look GM manages to create with the lambdas). For the lambda look, you get far more 3rd row room.
Anyway, in a year's time from purchase, the Audi will definitely garner more respect and return more tactile satisfaction than the Enclave. BUt for people who don't care that much about "status," the Enclave will win on practically every count save resale.
If I were in this market and could find an Audi Q7 at the same price, I'd grab it and not care about the difference in cost for gas. It won't be that much, with super premium just 20 cents more (and even closer by filling every other time with mid-grade). If I had several kids and all the stuff that goes with transporting them these days, hands down, it would be the lambda. Why would you want two kids puking up in an Audi anyway? :P
the 07 q7 audi configurator allows the 3rd row option on the base model and I can't find a 6600lb rating on the website, where'd you find that, all i could find was the 5500lb number i posted.
you load up the lambda with family and stuff for a boating weekend, you add towing a boat that is more than the rated max of the lambda and you think that's OK, up to you, whatever, and then going to tell me that makes sense or is safe. instead you can spend the same money for the q and gain 1k lbs towing capacity that'll give you more of a safety margin when towing a 4500+lb boat with a loaded q.
indeed, what is the point of tow ratings if you aren't going to pay attention to them. one car you narrowed down to meets your criteria, one doesn't on that basis alone. the prices seem to be in line with each other so that no longer is part of the equation and its even the one you liked more to begin with...
seems like the audi is the better choice given the fact you finally indicated that you tow a boat. if you don't want a vehicle that meets your towing requirements safely that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense but it's your money.
I'm with you, though, on towing: if you're going to have the car full of people and gear, and then tow right up to the limit, I'd be a little worried (mainly because I tend to drive a little fast). Is there a towing forum on Edmunds?
Audi also scored poorly in that survey, and yet the Q7 scored much better than Audi's rating would suggest.
The top ratings for Buick vs. the middling ratings for Saturn/GM/GMC are curious at least, with all the GM badge engineering and sharing of power plants.
As a quick exercise, list the ratings for the Mazda 3 for model years 2004 through 2006. The comfort rating goes from 4 to 2 stars without any changes to the interior. What gives?
All that said, I am really curious about the initial ratings for the CX-9, which remain unavailable. I like to use TSBs and recalls as a better indication of quality.
If you really like the CX-9, one option to consider is to phone your local Ford dealer and ask whether they would service it. The powertrain is mostly shared with many other Ford vehicles and you would only have to drive farther for non-scheduled non-mechanical problems.
I did have the opposite arrangement a few years ago, taking a Ford Focus for service at the local Mazda dealer (long story.) They even performed some of the recalls.
how do you figure that, its got a load rating and a tow rating the engineers took into account and rate it for. while it won't be able to make its unladen 8.2sec sprint to 60 it should be up to the task given it's ratings to tow safely driven accordingly.
She mentioned hoping she wasn't downsizing too much. from that I would suspect the tahoe was/is going to be a trade-in or for sale privately since the husband is only ever going to be driving his buicks. just a shot in the dark though.
how come all the cx love despite it clearly not even being close to the towing ability the OP needs and being offered up after she clearly narrowed her choices down to the two parties...
life is funny and even a bit ironic...
i'm thinking goose/gander... laughing inside
I think it is time to move on.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
You can go ahead and close this if you like, I have gotten all I need here!
See, that's just it - everyone sees it but you....
You can go ahead and close this if you like, I have gotten all I need here!
I'm not seeing where the title changed to "Crossover CUV Comparison for jc8". Did I miss something?
I'm with the others. If you're towing 4500+ lbs and a cabin full of adults, kids, and all the gear that goes with both in a Lamda, then please stay off the highways I travel. I see enough carnage on the news.
She did mention that her husband liked the CX-9 a lot, but there was not a Mazda dealer near their location. Since she did not specifically mentioned she was trading in the Tahoe, I thought rude to inquire about an otherwise private matter and offered what could be useful advice.
Who knows? Maybe her husband would like to trade that Buick of his in a CX-9 in the future. Maybe not.
The alternative, of course, is to always assume other people's assumptions wrong and fish for an argument, and laugh inside, and out, with a whooshing "false sense of overdoneness".
I think the hosts got very close to that point yesterday :-) It was posting-slashing day.
YET THAT MAKES ME THE PARIAH... DO YOU WANT HER ROLLING DOWN AN INCLINED ROAD TOWARDS YOUR FAMILY IN WHATEVER YOU DRIVE WITH AN OVERLADEN LAMBDA FULLY LOADED WITH FAMILY/STUFF FOR THE WEEKEND AND A BOAT THAT WEIGHS MORE THAN THE MAX TOW RATING OF THE CAPABLE ENCLAVE...
I MAY BE A LITTLE ORNARY AROUND HERE BUT TO THINK THAT MAKES ANY SENSE IS MORE THAN A LITTLE IRRESPONSIBLE. BUT IF ANYONE ELSE POINTED THAT OUT IT'D BE ALL HIGH FIVES AND GOOD POINT...
SORRY FOR ALL CAPS, TYPED WITHOUT REALIZING...WASN'T TRYING TO "SHOUT"
I didn't really pay that much attention to that point during the test-drive since I am planning to get sensors or a backup camera in whatever I buy.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4220226.html
Yes, but in the past it was more volatile than this. I haven't been around there in a while so who knows.
I don't think tow ratings are to be taken lightly, and I don't want a tow vehicle/trailer that is at or near the GCWR coming at me down the highway. The only way I can see a lambda pulling a boat that's a 'little more' than 4500# is if there's minimal gas in the boat, only a driver, and little or no accessories. Load everything up for an outing, and I'm sure you'll be way over the GCWR.
Mark
It's Friday.
Those 10" are the difference between carrying 6-7 people and their luggage on longer trips versus having a 5-seater that can occasionally double as a short-range minivan replacement.
There are fewer contenders in the 200" category, which includes (in my count) the lambdas, TX, CX9, Q7, and R series. Discount the two last in the list for those who want to stay below 40K and there isn't really much competition.
Not necessarily. The current Pilot almost has the space of a lambda. It's only the legroom that's smaller by a few inches, and the behind the 3rd row cargo space is only a few CuFt less too. In it's current version it can hold 8 people, even though 1/2 of those 8 better be kids that are not in carseats! But most of the time I'd think that it's unlikely anyone was carrying 8 passengers and all of their cargo
BTW...153CuFt is the passenger volume of BOTH the Pilot and lambdas.
http://www.saturn.com/saturn/vehicles/outlook/pricing.jsp
http://automobiles.honda.com/pilot/specifications.aspx?group=dimensions
I've said in previous posts I think the passenger volume CuFt is not as accurate as legroom/hiproom dimensions, and yet some people here claim that the passenger CuFt measurement to be more accurate. If that's the case, since the passenger CuFt of the Pilot and lambda are equal, then I guess they both have the same space inside....yet the legroom inches are greater in the lambda and it's hard to believe that the current Pilot and lambda would each carry 8 in the same level of comfort. That's why measurement such as legroom give you a better idea of comfort level than a general CuFt measurement.
I disagree, I think it emphasizes that dimension measurements are broad classifiers at best. Parking your behind in the seats is the only way to guage comfort. Unfortunately, our behinds and legs differ so it won't end any disagreements either. The cooler test was what I really liked about the Popular M. reviews. Who cares how many cu ft there are, can you use them?
You're right, it's better just to sit in them. I wish more car reviewers actually filled the car full of people for their tests. I have yet to see a photo of three adults sitting in the 3rd row of lambda, with three adults in the 2nd row as well. There's just a lot of talk on how big they are. It's the same with the CX9, Pilot, or pick your vehicle. It would be nice to see some people in these cars.
Or do comparison of taking 4 suitcases and putting them behind the 3rd row of each of these CUVs and taking a picture of the final result. That would give you a better impression and a better way to compare versus CuFt.
If you have any luggage, it can only seat 4 people comfortably. So if you are looking for a big CUV to carry 4 passengers and luggage the Highlander is a good choice. For function it can only compete with the 3rd row as an afterthought crowd. Big disappointment to me, I had high hopes for it.
I think that's exactly the market Toyota is looking for with the Highlander. The 3rd row is just there (and on the RAV4) just for those occasions when you need to carry a couple more people for short drives. I don't think Toyota built the Highlander with a family of 7 in mind going on long road trips...they have the Sienna for that, or the Sequoia. And considering most families consist of 2 adults and 2 kids, than there's a pretty big market for this type of vehicle, as the sales figures show.
I'm glad they kept it small. Remember it's 13" shorter than a lambda and not as wide. The Sequoia is about the same size as the lamdas, but it does have less MPG than the lambdas. The Highlander is really just the station wagon Camry.
As long as it's agreed there is NO WAY that the Pilot can seat 6-8 as comfortably as the lambdas. It's physically impossible. The Pilot's third row is, though better than the Highlander and Tribeca, small.
A few inches less in the rear seat and a few CuFt less in the trunk is also what separates an Accord from a Civic. I think the PM video said, or showed, it all.
I agree that neither should carry 3 passengers on a long trip back there, specially because 15-20 CuFt of cargo for 8 people would be completely inadequate anyway.
I've sat inside a Pilot, but not in 3rd row (I am 6ft tall and the other passengers took pity on me.) It is really squarish inside, which helps passenger space as the canopy doesn't get narrower at the top.
And where was the Taurus X in this little comparison?
Doesn't really matter: people that are trading in traditional body-on-frame SUVs will likely never consider the Veracruz, so I don't think the Outlook will suffer because of this article (although it will suffer because it's a Saturn ;-) )
Agree...and that passenger CuFt numbers don't mean too much since
There are 4 CuFt less of space behind the 3rd row, 15.9 vs 19.7.
Interestingly enough, short of legroom, the Pilot beat the lambdas in every other 3rd row seat measurement. In the end, hip room is probably the limiting factor for sitting 3 adults across. At 20" per hip, there is no way anyone can fit three adults within 48 of width. But 3 kids when car pooling for school should be a breeze.
To the happiness of TX fans, I find one big advantage in its cargo carrying capacity that I really like, which is that folding front passenger seat. You can fit 10ft pieces inside the car (such as a handful of crown molding pieces or a latter).
I know that the lambdas and the CX-9 don't have it. Does any other CUV have it?
I just got this car..I love this car. I am very glad I did not get public transportion cars such as Toyota Sienna and Honda Odyessy. They are both great cars, but everyone drive the cars..
After I test drove many cars for last 6 months, I came across to CX9. I had no idea what this car was and I accidently saw on the street. So I decided to visit Mazda dealer and after that I could not walk away from this car..This car combine of Lexus and acura TL. I really want to get Acura TL, but I had to get family car since I have 2 daughers. This car was perfect since it drives like Acura while it feel like lexus and roomy for my kids.
Only compliants are MPG,and better design on front side since back looks great.
The lease on my father-in-law's '06 Explorer is up (he leased it in late summer 2005) and he's dead set on replacing it with a Veracruz. I showed him his other options but he didn't care for any of them. I too will consider a VC when our Explorer lease is up too so I'm curious as to why you would make that comment?
I think you meant to say Acura RSX then, as the TL has a comfortable back seat and a large trunk.
I understand the Acura reference for the sporty handling, but what are the Lexus-like qualities you have seen in the CX-9?
By large I mean Tahoe-sized, etc. Of course you could take exception to that comment as well, but from reading the forums it has become very apparent to me that people don't want to downsize, even though they don't need the room.
The Outlook/Acadia is also more chunky looking, like a traditional SUV. The Veracruz is curvy in comparison, and again, that seems to be a negative with those large SUV buyers (based on reading the forums).