Bob: I'm not sure a CUV is ideal if you really need a lot ground clearance. For that, a good old SUV is probably ideal. The Tribeca offers a bit over 8", but aren't most of these 5-7" off the ground?
grand6: good point about the luxury offerings. The Sienna does offer Lexus-like features like dynamic laser cruise control and HIDs, but the Enclave does have more luxurious "ambience", if you will.
Motorweek just tested an Enclave, and they liked it, said it felt more quiet than the Outlook, and felt it was a good value compared to the smaller RX350. 0-60 in 9.2 was so-so, but they did manage 21 mpg, which is good.
I agree with your point about comfort, too, though that applies only to the 1st two rows. They put an adult in the 3rd row on that show and you could tell head room was cramped.
freealfas: I wrote "IF they are carrying items that need to stay dry".
I'm happy with my minivan but I don't believe I said I "LOVED it" (your caps). It was the right tool for the job I had in mind.
The OP came here and said the Sienna was on his short list, so vans are fair game. If you don't want to discuss them, fine, stay out of that discussion.
One might ask why you, Official Lambda Enemy Number One, are now defending a product you've poured insults on repeatedly. What? Now it suddendly isn't the overweight pig you've been calling it all this time?
BTW I've often defended the Lambdas.
You made points about it being too heavy and using too much gas, yet the OP asks about a Sienna, which is 600 lbs lighter and uses less gas, and you choose to attack me with Haterade rather than make the points you made earlier about weight and efficiency. Why the inconsistency? :confuse:
I've said vans are the more rational choice, but I never called CUV buyers "irrational". That goes too far. Here I would tend to agree with bob about the "style, looks, image" factor.
"The OP came here and said the Sienna was on his short list, so vans are fair game. If you don't want to discuss them, fine, stay out of that discussion."
I wasn't looking to get into it again with you as my initial point that I made very clearly and simply was one that my CUV could do all the things you said your mini could short of handling sheet goods on the inside which I freely admitted(how could I not).
When countered with my simple point you proceeded to go on the defensive with your use of your mini, your schedule, your friends and your ability to borrow a trailer from them, blah, blah, blah, blah... blah.
all of that had nothing to do with any of it and you didn't like hearing that.
My simple point was that my CUV which I did not name until you brought it up as to not engender the bias police around here is a swiss army knife, plain and simple as I have accomplished everything short of one task that you have with your beloved mini.
Then you threw out numbers like a cuv can do 80% of a mini. Again, your unsubstantiated opinion wasn't the point of any of this.
"One might ask why you, Official Lambda Enemy Number One, are now defending a product you've poured insults on repeatedly. What? Now it suddendly isn't the overweight pig you've been calling it all this time?"
There's absolutely no inconsistency on my part. I don't care what the OP buys really, I just wanted him to hear that there are CUV BUYERS, regardless of model bought, that are happy with the utility of their CUV while freely conceding repeatedly your one point of sheet good transport.
My thoughts of the Lambda's still are the same, the FS is dead to me and with any luck the Flex will be the next rig to be rolling here in the windy city.
Find the forest through the trees ateixeira I've lightened up, you might do the same.
"BTW I've often defended the Lambdas." "Note that pickups are built with more than 48" between the wheel wells for this specific purpose" "As for Freealfa's sarcastic comment about contractors driving Siennas, they actually tend to buy full-size vans like the Ford Econolines if they are carrying items that need to stay dry.
Example: carpeting."
I love your news flashes. I also love how you keep moving the bar when countered on any of your points, first pick ups are 48" wide for a reason(notice no concern for dry transport at that point), when told that wasn't really news or accurrate for that matter we then move to contractor's now buy vans to keep things dry, specifically carpet contractor's. Tell me how many construction sites you've been to to determine this or show you have reviewed the sales figures, It's OK to concede a point now and then...
And finally,
"The Sienna does offer Lexus-like features like dynamic laser cruise control "
just think how much easier this "lexus like features" will make it for parents to turn around to yell at all those cranky kids in back knowing technology is on the job... Oh that's right, that won't be a problem as there are no kids back there because they are really hauling drywall to keep it from becoming "wetwall"...
There is a long standing SUV vs Minivans discussion here, but I doubt that any posts in there changed anyone's mind either.
[Raising a hand] It changed my mind. I was bent at getting an Acura MDX, shopped most of the 7-seater CUV's on market, and after all the discussions here, I've settled on a Sienna. More practical, better at gas mileage, far superior visibility, HID lights and dynamic cruise control, good engine power, I could go on. Oh, one last thing - you could move the 2nd row pass seat by about 9" to the center, making a nice passage for someone to get into the 3rd row, or to put a huge piece of luggage there (OK, CUV folks, dont get mad at me for being the messenger, but I havent seen this feature in any of the S/CUV's). Now I am sitting on the fence wondering whether to get a 2007 or 2008 model. Happy shopping
FYI - and "don't shoot the messenger" for those taking the minivan plunge, just a question though, not sure why the sienna isn't rated 5 stars across like the top half of this list is. Admittedly, while it's a incremental finding when you consider the driver is IN the car EVERY time it leaves under it's own power you'd think toyota's vaunted engineering prowess could make that happen.
Everything I bring up is meant to be constructive. That's the "blah blah blah" part you ignored.
Fine, ignore it, then. The information wasn't intended for you, it was intended for the OP.
The 80% comment was merely an educated guess, it really depends on the capacity that matters to the OP. I think it's fair to say that a van will have more capacity behind the 1st/2nd/3rd/whatever row. That's all I meant by that.
I thought that was obvious, so it didn't need to be substantiated. 148.9 cubic feet overall, I think the top CUV offers about 115, so I was being generous.
As for moving the bar, not really, my point was and still is that 4'x8' is the Gold Standard. 48" width, 96" length. That is the bar, it never changed.
Funny thing is, while attacking me, you inadvertently bring up several advantages of the Sienna:
* the front seat folds flat (do the Lambdas do that? I dunno, so I'm asking) * I don't have to turn around, I use the conversation mirror * Dry wall fits upright between the seats
That last one means I can still have 5 passengers (gotta fold the rear 2/3rds), as long as you secure it properly.
I'm still not sure why this Sienna vs Lambda discussion is still going on. Of course the Sienna has more space inside, but if the lambdas have enough space to meet your needs, then go for it.
On the other hand, if every time you take a road trip in your lambda you find that you need to flip 1/2 of the 3rd row to equal the same cargo space as compared to the behind the 3rd row of the Sienna, and you find that your 3rd row passenger doesn't appreciate haveing a bunch of suitcases piled on top of a cooler sitting right beside them, don't complain
The lambdas, like all CUVs, sacrifice space for style and image...simple as that.
BTW...I own a Freestyle because that had enough space for me, so I didn't need the space of a full-sized minivan.
Hopefully some of the constructive information you found here was useful.
Here's some more useful information for you: those NCAP results above are for the 2004-2006 Sienna with the 3MZ V6 engine, the 3.3l.
For 2007, Toyota replaced that block with the 2GR block, a totally different design. Toyota also made changes to the firewall as well as adding extra insulation to the firewall (and the door sills, but that would not affect front crash tests).
Just in case you are concerned, I have images of the new firewall design, insulation, and information about your new 2GR engine in PDF format.
The 04-06 Sienna did ace the IIHS test, and I believe I gave you a link earlier of a video of that test. However, sadly, I think it needs to be re-tested at those results no longer apply, at least the front results, given the structural changes Toyota has made.
Hop over to the van threads, we can discuss the 07 vs. 08 changes and other options.
I agree and have invited the van shopper to the Sienna threads for more specific discussions on that van.
Back to CUVs...
My wife will be in the market early next year and the Subaru Tribeca is on our short list. Our van is FWD, so we would want something that met a different set of needs for her - not even sure exactly what those are yet to be honest. AWD, more ground clearance. She talks about a boat but I'd rather rent vs. buy. BOAT = Bring On Another Thousand $$$.
Size needs are met by the van so maybe even a Forester would do, I'm waiting to see the 2009s. Something smaller and sportier this time around, perhaps. Why Subarus? Because we've owned 2 and they've been fantastic. We also have $1100 "Subaru Bucks", i.e. credit card rewards.
I'll probably show her the new Impreza but she has a Legacy wagon now and doesn't want to downsize, not at this stage.
"Anyone shopping? Might be some deals as the GM strike lingers on. "
I should think the exact opposite. The dealers are the ones getting the money from sales (not GM - they already sold their inventory to the dealers), and factory stoppage will result in fewer available cars for sale.
Automotive News reports that GM has only a 26 day supply of Enclaves.
Ideal is 60 days, so they're already in short supply.
The strike will hit them hard, at least on that model. They have a surplus of the new trucks and most other models, but the Lambda pickens are thin even pre-strike.
I just took delivery of a 2008 CX-9 AWD GT. We compared test driving experiences between the CX-9, 2008 Highlander Sport and Acura MDX. I've also looked at many other vehicles in this class, I have a prior-gen X5, drove SUVs for more than 10+ years, here's my opinion:
- 2008 Highlander Pros: typical Toyota good build Cons: typical Toyota boring and dead/numb steering, interior is less plush and nice (compared to the CX), cost more money
- MDX Pros: none Cons: What the hell Honda is thinking? Useless third row, mind-boggling instrument panel (looks more crowded than the instrument panel of a Saab F-340), if looks could kill -> if this thing hits a pedestrian, it could kill him/her with that sharp pointed nose :-)
Others I have/haven't test-drove: - Pilot 2009 Redesign -> can't wait, possibly less than 300 HP (why, because MDX only has 300HP) but heavier than CX-9 or Highlander -> no good - Vera Cruz Good luck for those who spend 34K for a fully equipped Korean branded car, to me it doesn't make sense to spend that kind of money for a manufacturer that was still struggling in build quality, reliability and outdated model (XG-330 anyone?) until 1-2 years ago - Pathfinder Test-drove this one, built like a truck, drives and handles like one too. Nice face though, if only MDX wears this one instead - New Landcruiser This one is good, except it's much bigger and heavier than we need -> more gas. This is probably what I'll buy if I can deal with the size issue - GL Good, this is what I'll buy if I had the money - ML Too small, no 3rd row - Q7/Touareg Nice, but I'd go with the new X5 - XC-90 Yamaha engine - XC-70 Too small - X5 close to useless 3rd row, otherwise very nice, I'd go with the V8 regardless though - Range/Land Rovers Very good, this is what I'll get if I had the money and a spare CX-9/X5, I know I'll need it :-)
Like someone else said above, none of these are perfect it depends on what you're looking for. For us, here's the winning combinations: - interior is very nice and plush (felt like it costs 10K plus, remember we have a X5) - instruments are lined up clean and very nicely, again, typical of more expensive vehicles - better use of 3rd row seating arrangement and luggage space - price/performance ratio is about right Mazda should pull an Infinity FX45/35 combo, I might go for a bigger engine, although I don't think they have a bigger engine, and I certainly don't want Ford lame [non-permissible content removed] engine, what they offered in the USA -> big on gas nothing on power not to mention less than reliable reputation, luckily starting with 2008, the engine is made in Japan
Cons: Mazda could improve on storage (for example what's up with the shallow glove box and center console)
You may be wondering why there's no GM, Chrysler or Ford products, I'm biased against them. Until I see that the meet this criteria, I'll not walk in their dealerships. They are: Fuel efficient latest technology engine, with commensurate power (no V6 that gulps down gas like crazy while delivering just 210 HP for your latest generation car), high reliability across all areas (not just 10 year power-train warranty), better fit and finish (get rid of those gaps) and better prices (no rebates, just firm cheaper prices, hold off those yearly price increases). In other words, they have to be more reliable and fuel efficient than the Japanese brands, sportier than the the German brands and close to the Korean pricing. I'm sorry if they have been mismanaged for so long, it will take a lot of work to win back customers, certainly more than using tons of rebates. There's almost nothing that couldn't be fixed when you have better products, so says Carlos Ghosn after turning around Nissan.
You know the CX9 uses a Ford engine, basically, right? It's the 3.5l Duratec. The Ford Taurus X and Edge use the same engine, essentially.
Also, what about GM's 3.6l V6? It certainly has the latest technology. It's not the Direct Injection upgrade version from the high-end Cadillac CTS models, but still, it's certainly competitive.
You can get good discounts on the Veracruz. At fitzmall.com they start at just $25,381 no-haggle. $29,979 for a Limited. Residuals are weak but it will take Hyundai a while for public perpection to catch up to the fact that they've improved so much.
You know the CX9 uses a Ford engine, basically, right? It's the 3.5l Duratec. The Ford Taurus X and Edge use the same engine, essentially.
Actually juice starting in 2008 the CX-9, and most likely the '09 Mazda6, get the new Mazda tuned 3.7L Duratec. It makes 273 HP and 270 ft-lbs in the CX-9 which is class leading now IIRC. Also IIRC, the block and other parts of that engine are still made here by Ford and shipped over to Japan where Mazda adds their heads and other parts.
Isn't the tranny for the lambdas, Edge & TaurusX all the same too?
Yes and no. Yes they are the same basic design because Ford and GM partnered to develop it. However, both mfrs use different software and gear tuning to meet their customer's demands. Everything I've read so far shows early versions being somewhat in need of better tuning, but I haven't seen anything bad about them lately so the bugs may all be worked out. The good news with that is the early versions can be brought up to speed with a simple PCM flash at your dealer in most cases.
The good news with that is the early versions can be brought up to speed with a simple PCM flash at your dealer in most cases.
I have an 08 Enclave and I can tell you the new transmission program is quite good. I personally would still prefer a downshift with less throttle input but it is nothing like the lags seen in previous versions of the program.
Yes, starting in 2008, it's 3.7L. Also CX-9 has always used 6 speed sweet Aisin transmission. This one is very smooth, it will keep you at 6 (most fuel efficient) but when I step on it, it kicks down a notch or two and the CUV just "flies". Granted it's no M3 acceleration, but for a 4500lbs vehicle it's pretty good, the 2008 updated HP and torque help a bit.
Not a lot of people noticed the change. Mazda has been pretty quiet about it so far. Maybe because they do still have some '07s to move? I for one would like to see the new test numbers as a few Fords are rumored to get the Duratec37 in the near future. Read, Mustang, F-150, and Explorer. Then there's the DI version for a Lincoln or two which, depending what you read, puts out over 300 HP.
A little OT there but I felt it was worth noting where this motor came from all of a sudden.
Actually juice starting in 2008 the CX-9, and most likely the '09 Mazda6, get the new Mazda tuned 3.7L Duratec. It makes 273 HP and 270 ft-lbs in the CX-9 which is class leading now IIRC.
My 07 Outlook is 275 HP. Not much of a difference. The CX-9 would be quicker due to less weight.
My 07 Outlook is 275 HP. Not much of a difference. The CX-9 would be quicker due to less weight.
Right but you have to get the more expensive XR model to get that extra 5 HP. Also, the GM 3.6L only puts out 250 ft-lbs of torque. The CX-9's 3.7L blows it out of the water there.
So the CX-9 should be quite a bit faster, not that it really matters in this class of vehicles IMO, than the Lamdas now.
This debate only goes to show how far the domestic powertrains have come, when we talk about how the newer mills have "only" 250 lb-ft.
Well, the ancient Cologne V6 in our Explorer has more than 250 ft-lbs but it's HP rating is waaaaaay behind the newer mills. Plus it's quite a bit noisier. Still runs well and gets the job done though.
Very true. Plus the fan is still driven by a belt!
I was kind of surprised to see the 3.7L go into the CX-9 because to date Ford has only mentioned it for RWD applications save for the new MKS which will be AWD and have the DI version. They use only the 3.5L, and soon the TwinForce line, for FWD applications from what I've read.
I'm also wondering what the output numbers will be for the Ford version seeing that Mazda does work their own magic on the engines like adding VVT. Ford tends to leave full VVT for both cams off of it's versions so I wonder how much of a difference that will make. The Flex seems like a prime candidate for the 3.7L.
I think the CX-9, in the Mazda zoom-zoom tradition, focuses on sportiness (not just in hp/torque) vs practicality and mpg. Buick empasizes luxury, GM other practical areas, Saturn simplicity. Hyundia warranty/price, Subaru AWD, Volvo safety, Ford more on the practical/sporty side with Mercury/Lincoln as their luxury divisions, but it's not so clear.
You may have a different opinion on your comments if you actually drive and inspect the build quality of this vehicle.
The quality on the Veracruz is exceptional. For instance, we traded in a 2003 BMW X-5 and the auto transmission on the 6 speed Veracruz is much smoother than the BMW ever was.
The kicker is Hyundai is VERY agressive in making deals; sold the car well under invoice; AND gave us $4000!! more on our trade-in than Lexus or BMW.
From his comments, it looked like he had his mind made up going in. He had a bunch of preconceived notions that led him to the conclusion he had already made. Since the purchase is a done deal, why bother making any comments?
For whatever reason, this model is simply above and beyond the interior quality and materials of other Hyundais, including the Sante Fe and the Entourage.
The Entourage is OK, the Santa Fe is OK, but neither stands out. Sit in the Veracruz and wow, it's a much higher level of build quality than its siblings. The soft leather seats in particular are of a much higher grade.
I quoted some prices above from a no-haggle dealer, so the low prices might offset some fears of rapid depreciation.
You traded a Bimmer for a Hyundai?! Wow! That's a sign that Hyundai's really stepping it up (or someone really wanted to lower their note!).
Hyundai did do really respectable with the Vera Cruz. In my oppinion it's not the best, but it's definitely better than Ford's Edge, Honda's Pilot, Nissan's Murano, and suprisingly, Toyota's Highlander (score one for the Koreans. They are celebrating right now). Then again, being better than the currnt Highlander is nothing big, as I think the new Highlander is a disapointment, and a dismal failure in redesign. Toyota greatly underestimated the crossover market, as well as the redo that was needed. The only things they did to the new Highlander was a facelift, a more competitive V6, and the captains chairs with that sorry excuse for a middle seat. Third row seating is still tight, and the bench isn't split! Don't want to sound biased, but I think we've all come to expect a little more from Toyota.
And what happened to the straightline breaking news column on Insideline? There's no button from the Future vehicles site anymore.
How did the CX-9 get .2 more liters and only 7 more horsepower? was there a big torque increase?
The horsepower increased by 10 not 7 (273@6250), and the torque increase is 21 (270@4500) while maintaining the same fuel economy rating as the old engine.
a 2003 Bimmer(X5) that had 85000 miles, was out of warranty and was having multiple mechanical problems. and I'm a BMW lover: owned a 2002 for 8 years; and an M5 for 4 years.
I would have never thought I'ld have owned a Hyundai. All I can tell any skeptic is--- go drive the Veracruz. It may fall apart next year, but I don't think so. It's too tight.
Okay, I know there is a wider variety of choices than this, but lets say Motortrend picks a crossover for its sport utility of the year. What would it be?
Just attended the Taste of Lexus event today, and got a chance to sample several cars, including an RX400H.
It puzzles me that this is Lexus' best selling car, to be honest, because it's my least favorite.
The cockpit feels narrow, the center of gravity is very high, body roll is abundant, and it understeers like mad. The ride isn't as soft as the ES', either.
I know it's an older model due for a redo, but it's about time.
Some of the strong points? Impeccable fit and finish, great quality of materials, beautiful GPS system, soft and plush leather.
Motortrend had a competition between the Acadia, MDX, and CX-9. The Acadia came in last (the CX-9 came in first, for those who care). The main complain on the Acadia was low on power (it was the slowest), and the transmission that constantly kept gear hunting. And the fact the model they tested came in at $45k.
So based on that, doubtful that the Acadia would make it to the top of the list. Maybe the Enclave would have a better chance.
Motortrend did give thumbs up to the Veracruz as compared to the Lexus RX350. Maybe signs of things to come when they give out the award?
Yeah, I gave up on MT back in the 80s, when I learned that the Renault Alliance won. I mean come on, that car was a piece of junk (my buddy had one, and it didn't like Canadian winters).
I have yet to drive the Veracruz, only climbed into one. It's definitely a huge step forward for Hyundai. The Acadia, on the other hand, is basically a replacement for the Envoy, imo. But it might be the car that helps turn GM around, so you never know what MT might do (and the Envoy did win recently, if I'm not mistaken).
Thinking the Outlook will be the winner, as there is nothing else in the class like it (besides the other two lambda siblings). I'm calling the cheapest one becasue it has a nicer interior and better value than the Acadia (I know about all that stiff Saturn pricing, but MT can't look at what a buyer would actually pay, only msrp).
The main reason CX-9 beat out the Acadia was because of the huge price difference for similarly equipped models. With the Outlook, the prices would be much more similar, and the Saturn might even undercut. And in November's MT, in the SUV/Truck/Van buyers guide, thye give the Outlook a higher rating than the Acadia and CX-9.
I think Saturn is extremely deserving, as no one has been able to do what Gm's lambdas have in terms of handling, performance, mpg or interior space. And the interior is just as worthy as any competitor. The Outlook is thecar that is really turning Saturn around.
GM did the right thing with the Lambdas: they are the perfect minivan replacements that people are looking for. However, the driving experience was not overly exciting for me (I drove a model that did not have the transmission reflash, and I think that's what's going to hurt them in the ratings.
Looking at past winners, it wouldn't surprise me if they picked something for on the Sport-Luxury side (wasn't the BMW X5 redesigned, and a few Mercedes just came out too?)
Comments
grand6: good point about the luxury offerings. The Sienna does offer Lexus-like features like dynamic laser cruise control and HIDs, but the Enclave does have more luxurious "ambience", if you will.
Motorweek just tested an Enclave, and they liked it, said it felt more quiet than the Outlook, and felt it was a good value compared to the smaller RX350. 0-60 in 9.2 was so-so, but they did manage 21 mpg, which is good.
I agree with your point about comfort, too, though that applies only to the 1st two rows. They put an adult in the 3rd row on that show and you could tell head room was cramped.
freealfas: I wrote "IF they are carrying items that need to stay dry".
I'm happy with my minivan but I don't believe I said I "LOVED it" (your caps). It was the right tool for the job I had in mind.
The OP came here and said the Sienna was on his short list, so vans are fair game. If you don't want to discuss them, fine, stay out of that discussion.
One might ask why you, Official Lambda Enemy Number One, are now defending a product you've poured insults on repeatedly. What? Now it suddendly isn't the overweight pig you've been calling it all this time?
BTW I've often defended the Lambdas.
You made points about it being too heavy and using too much gas, yet the OP asks about a Sienna, which is 600 lbs lighter and uses less gas, and you choose to attack me with Haterade rather than make the points you made earlier about weight and efficiency. Why the inconsistency? :confuse:
I've said vans are the more rational choice, but I never called CUV buyers "irrational". That goes too far. Here I would tend to agree with bob about the "style, looks, image" factor.
I wasn't looking to get into it again with you as my initial point that I made very clearly and simply was one that my CUV could do all the things you said your mini could short of handling sheet goods on the inside which I freely admitted(how could I not).
When countered with my simple point you proceeded to go on the defensive with your use of your mini, your schedule, your friends and your ability to borrow a trailer from them, blah, blah, blah, blah... blah.
all of that had nothing to do with any of it and you didn't like hearing that.
My simple point was that my CUV which I did not name until you brought it up as to not engender the bias police around here is a swiss army knife, plain and simple as I have accomplished everything short of one task that you have with your beloved mini.
Then you threw out numbers like a cuv can do 80% of a mini. Again, your unsubstantiated opinion wasn't the point of any of this.
"One might ask why you, Official Lambda Enemy Number One, are now defending a product you've poured insults on repeatedly. What? Now it suddendly isn't the overweight pig you've been calling it all this time?"
There's absolutely no inconsistency on my part. I don't care what the OP buys really, I just wanted him to hear that there are CUV BUYERS, regardless of model bought, that are happy with the utility of their CUV while freely conceding repeatedly your one point of sheet good transport.
My thoughts of the Lambda's still are the same, the FS is dead to me and with any luck the Flex will be the next rig to be rolling here in the windy city.
Find the forest through the trees ateixeira I've lightened up, you might do the same.
"BTW I've often defended the Lambdas."
"Note that pickups are built with more than 48" between the wheel wells for this specific purpose"
"As for Freealfa's sarcastic comment about contractors driving Siennas, they actually tend to buy full-size vans like the Ford Econolines if they are carrying items that need to stay dry.
Example: carpeting."
I love your news flashes. I also love how you keep moving the bar when countered on any of your points, first pick ups are 48" wide for a reason(notice no concern for dry transport at that point), when told that wasn't really news or accurrate for that matter we then move to contractor's now buy vans to keep things dry, specifically carpet contractor's. Tell me how many construction sites you've been to to determine this or show you have reviewed the sales figures, It's OK to concede a point now and then...
And finally,
"The Sienna does offer Lexus-like features like dynamic laser cruise control "
just think how much easier this "lexus like features" will make it for parents to turn around to yell at all those cranky kids in back knowing technology is on the job... Oh that's right, that won't be a problem as there are no kids back there because they are really hauling drywall to keep it from becoming "wetwall"...
[Raising a hand] It changed my mind. I was bent at getting an Acura MDX, shopped most of the 7-seater CUV's on market, and after all the discussions here, I've settled on a Sienna. More practical, better at gas mileage, far superior visibility, HID lights and dynamic cruise control, good engine power, I could go on. Oh, one last thing - you could move the 2nd row pass seat by about 9" to the center, making a nice passage for someone to get into the 3rd row, or to put a huge piece of luggage there (OK, CUV folks, dont get mad at me for being the messenger, but I havent seen this feature in any of the S/CUV's). Now I am sitting on the fence wondering whether to get a 2007 or 2008 model. Happy shopping
FYI - and "don't shoot the messenger" for those taking the minivan plunge, just a question though, not sure why the sienna isn't rated 5 stars across like the top half of this list is. Admittedly, while it's a incremental finding when you consider the driver is IN the car EVERY time it leaves under it's own power you'd think toyota's vaunted engineering prowess could make that happen.
http://autos.aol.com/article/safety/v2/_a/safest-minivans/20070921221309990001
Fine, ignore it, then. The information wasn't intended for you, it was intended for the OP.
The 80% comment was merely an educated guess, it really depends on the capacity that matters to the OP. I think it's fair to say that a van will have more capacity behind the 1st/2nd/3rd/whatever row. That's all I meant by that.
I thought that was obvious, so it didn't need to be substantiated. 148.9 cubic feet overall, I think the top CUV offers about 115, so I was being generous.
As for moving the bar, not really, my point was and still is that 4'x8' is the Gold Standard. 48" width, 96" length. That is the bar, it never changed.
Funny thing is, while attacking me, you inadvertently bring up several advantages of the Sienna:
* the front seat folds flat (do the Lambdas do that? I dunno, so I'm asking)
* I don't have to turn around, I use the conversation mirror
* Dry wall fits upright between the seats
That last one means I can still have 5 passengers (gotta fold the rear 2/3rds), as long as you secure it properly.
That surprised me, too.
On the other hand, if every time you take a road trip in your lambda you find that you need to flip 1/2 of the 3rd row to equal the same cargo space as compared to the behind the 3rd row of the Sienna, and you find that your 3rd row passenger doesn't appreciate haveing a bunch of suitcases piled on top of a cooler sitting right beside them, don't complain
The lambdas, like all CUVs, sacrifice space for style and image...simple as that.
BTW...I own a Freestyle because that had enough space for me, so I didn't need the space of a full-sized minivan.
Hopefully some of the constructive information you found here was useful.
Here's some more useful information for you: those NCAP results above are for the 2004-2006 Sienna with the 3MZ V6 engine, the 3.3l.
For 2007, Toyota replaced that block with the 2GR block, a totally different design. Toyota also made changes to the firewall as well as adding extra insulation to the firewall (and the door sills, but that would not affect front crash tests).
Just in case you are concerned, I have images of the new firewall design, insulation, and information about your new 2GR engine in PDF format.
The 04-06 Sienna did ace the IIHS test, and I believe I gave you a link earlier of a video of that test. However, sadly, I think it needs to be re-tested at those results no longer apply, at least the front results, given the structural changes Toyota has made.
Hop over to the van threads, we can discuss the 07 vs. 08 changes and other options.
in actuallity it was to hear/see yourself on the web and get the post count up...
"Funny thing is, while attacking me, you inadvertently bring up several advantages of the Sienna:"
you are really starting to sound like those crazy FS owner's that were around here awhile back and we all know how well that went...LOL
I agree and have invited the van shopper to the Sienna threads for more specific discussions on that van.
Back to CUVs...
My wife will be in the market early next year and the Subaru Tribeca is on our short list. Our van is FWD, so we would want something that met a different set of needs for her - not even sure exactly what those are yet to be honest. AWD, more ground clearance. She talks about a boat but I'd rather rent vs. buy. BOAT = Bring On Another Thousand $$$.
Size needs are met by the van so maybe even a Forester would do, I'm waiting to see the 2009s. Something smaller and sportier this time around, perhaps. Why Subarus? Because we've owned 2 and they've been fantastic. We also have $1100 "Subaru Bucks", i.e. credit card rewards.
I'll probably show her the new Impreza but she has a Legacy wagon now and doesn't want to downsize, not at this stage.
(btw, some off-topic posts were excised - shoot me an email if you want a copy of your missive)
I should think the exact opposite. The dealers are the ones getting the money from sales (not GM - they already sold their inventory to the dealers), and factory stoppage will result in fewer available cars for sale.
Scarcity means higher prices / less dealing.
More strike debate can be found in United Automobile Workers of America (UAW) btw.
Ideal is 60 days, so they're already in short supply.
The strike will hit them hard, at least on that model. They have a surplus of the new trucks and most other models, but the Lambda pickens are thin even pre-strike.
- 2008 Highlander
Pros: typical Toyota good build
Cons: typical Toyota boring and dead/numb steering, interior is less plush and nice (compared to the CX), cost more money
- MDX
Pros: none
Cons: What the hell Honda is thinking? Useless third row, mind-boggling instrument panel (looks more crowded than the instrument panel of a Saab F-340), if looks could kill -> if this thing hits a pedestrian, it could kill him/her with that sharp pointed nose :-)
Others I have/haven't test-drove:
- Pilot
2009 Redesign -> can't wait, possibly less than 300 HP (why, because MDX only has 300HP) but heavier than CX-9 or Highlander -> no good
- Vera Cruz
Good luck for those who spend 34K for a fully equipped Korean branded car, to me it doesn't make sense to spend that kind of money for a manufacturer that was still struggling in build quality, reliability and outdated model (XG-330 anyone?) until 1-2 years ago
- Pathfinder
Test-drove this one, built like a truck, drives and handles like one too. Nice face though, if only MDX wears this one instead
- New Landcruiser
This one is good, except it's much bigger and heavier than we need -> more gas. This is probably what I'll buy if I can deal with the size issue
- GL
Good, this is what I'll buy if I had the money
- ML
Too small, no 3rd row
- Q7/Touareg
Nice, but I'd go with the new X5
- XC-90
Yamaha engine
- XC-70
Too small
- X5
close to useless 3rd row, otherwise very nice, I'd go with the V8 regardless though
- Range/Land Rovers
Very good, this is what I'll get if I had the money and a spare CX-9/X5, I know I'll need it :-)
Like someone else said above, none of these are perfect it depends on what you're looking for. For us, here's the winning combinations:
- interior is very nice and plush (felt like it costs 10K plus, remember we have a X5)
- instruments are lined up clean and very nicely, again, typical of more expensive vehicles
- better use of 3rd row seating arrangement and luggage space
- price/performance ratio is about right
Mazda should pull an Infinity FX45/35 combo, I might go for a bigger engine, although I don't think they have a bigger engine, and I certainly don't want Ford lame [non-permissible content removed] engine, what they offered in the USA -> big on gas nothing on power not to mention less than reliable reputation, luckily starting with 2008, the engine is made in Japan
Cons:
Mazda could improve on storage (for example what's up with the shallow glove box and center console)
You may be wondering why there's no GM, Chrysler or Ford products, I'm biased against them. Until I see that the meet this criteria, I'll not walk in their dealerships. They are: Fuel efficient latest technology engine, with commensurate power (no V6 that gulps down gas like crazy while delivering just 210 HP for your latest generation car), high reliability across all areas (not just 10 year power-train warranty), better fit and finish (get rid of those gaps) and better prices (no rebates, just firm cheaper prices, hold off those yearly price increases). In other words, they have to be more reliable and fuel efficient than the Japanese brands, sportier than the the German brands and close to the Korean pricing. I'm sorry if they have been mismanaged for so long, it will take a lot of work to win back customers, certainly more than using tons of rebates. There's almost nothing that couldn't be fixed when you have better products, so says Carlos Ghosn after turning around Nissan.
Also, what about GM's 3.6l V6? It certainly has the latest technology. It's not the Direct Injection upgrade version from the high-end Cadillac CTS models, but still, it's certainly competitive.
You can get good discounts on the Veracruz. At fitzmall.com they start at just $25,381 no-haggle. $29,979 for a Limited. Residuals are weak but it will take Hyundai a while for public perpection to catch up to the fact that they've improved so much.
Actually juice starting in 2008 the CX-9, and most likely the '09 Mazda6, get the new Mazda tuned 3.7L Duratec. It makes 273 HP and 270 ft-lbs in the CX-9 which is class leading now IIRC. Also IIRC, the block and other parts of that engine are still made here by Ford and shipped over to Japan where Mazda adds their heads and other parts.
Yes and no. Yes they are the same basic design because Ford and GM partnered to develop it. However, both mfrs use different software and gear tuning to meet their customer's demands. Everything I've read so far shows early versions being somewhat in need of better tuning, but I haven't seen anything bad about them lately so the bugs may all be worked out. The good news with that is the early versions can be brought up to speed with a simple PCM flash at your dealer in most cases.
FWIW the CX-9 uses a Jatco tranny IIRC.
I have an 08 Enclave and I can tell you the new transmission program is quite good. I personally would still prefer a downshift with less throttle input but it is nothing like the lags seen in previous versions of the program.
The local dealer still has 2007s. Actually, they have both, a mix of 2007s as well as a few new 2008s that just arrived.
What has surprised you about it since the purchase?
Not a lot of people noticed the change. Mazda has been pretty quiet about it so far. Maybe because they do still have some '07s to move? I for one would like to see the new test numbers as a few Fords are rumored to get the Duratec37 in the near future. Read, Mustang, F-150, and Explorer. Then there's the DI version for a Lincoln or two which, depending what you read, puts out over 300 HP.
A little OT there but I felt it was worth noting where this motor came from all of a sudden.
My 07 Outlook is 275 HP. Not much of a difference. The CX-9 would be quicker due to less weight.
GM and UAW reached a tentative agreement, and UAW will vote on it shortly. I predict it will pass and the strike will end today.
Right but you have to get the more expensive XR model to get that extra 5 HP. Also, the GM 3.6L only puts out 250 ft-lbs of torque. The CX-9's 3.7L blows it out of the water there.
So the CX-9 should be quite a bit faster, not that it really matters in this class of vehicles IMO, than the Lamdas now.
Well, the ancient Cologne V6 in our Explorer has more than 250 ft-lbs but it's HP rating is waaaaaay behind the newer mills. Plus it's quite a bit noisier. Still runs well and gets the job done though.
Your point about HP is even more eye-opening when you consider specific output (HP/liter).
I was kind of surprised to see the 3.7L go into the CX-9 because to date Ford has only mentioned it for RWD applications save for the new MKS which will be AWD and have the DI version. They use only the 3.5L, and soon the TwinForce line, for FWD applications from what I've read.
I'm also wondering what the output numbers will be for the Ford version seeing that Mazda does work their own magic on the engines like adding VVT. Ford tends to leave full VVT for both cams off of it's versions so I wonder how much of a difference that will make. The Flex seems like a prime candidate for the 3.7L.
There are a lot of gray areas though!
You may have a different opinion on your comments if you actually drive and inspect the build quality of this vehicle.
The quality on the Veracruz is exceptional. For instance, we traded in a 2003 BMW X-5 and the auto transmission on the 6 speed Veracruz is much smoother than the BMW ever was.
The kicker is Hyundai is VERY agressive in making deals; sold the car well under invoice; AND gave us $4000!! more on our trade-in than Lexus or BMW.
That amounts to real $$.
For whatever reason, this model is simply above and beyond the interior quality and materials of other Hyundais, including the Sante Fe and the Entourage.
The Entourage is OK, the Santa Fe is OK, but neither stands out. Sit in the Veracruz and wow, it's a much higher level of build quality than its siblings. The soft leather seats in particular are of a much higher grade.
I quoted some prices above from a no-haggle dealer, so the low prices might offset some fears of rapid depreciation.
Wow! That's a sign that Hyundai's really stepping it up (or someone really wanted to lower their note!).
Hyundai did do really respectable with the Vera Cruz. In my oppinion it's not the best, but it's definitely better than Ford's Edge, Honda's Pilot, Nissan's Murano, and suprisingly, Toyota's Highlander (score one for the Koreans. They are celebrating right now). Then again, being better than the currnt Highlander is nothing big, as I think the new Highlander is a disapointment, and a dismal failure in redesign. Toyota greatly underestimated the crossover market, as well as the redo that was needed. The only things they did to the new Highlander was a facelift, a more competitive V6, and the captains chairs with that sorry excuse for a middle seat. Third row seating is still tight, and the bench isn't split!
Don't want to sound biased, but I think we've all come to expect a little more from Toyota.
And what happened to the straightline breaking news column on Insideline? There's no button from the Future vehicles site anymore.
The horsepower increased by 10 not 7 (273@6250), and the torque increase is 21 (270@4500) while maintaining the same fuel economy rating as the old engine.
Toyota had better hope that most Highlander buyers don't use that feature often.
I would have never thought I'ld have owned a Hyundai. All I can tell any skeptic is--- go drive the Veracruz. It may fall apart next year, but I don't think so. It's too tight.
What would it be?
Ford/Mazda have too many sibling rivals stealing votes for each other.
Who was nominated?
It puzzles me that this is Lexus' best selling car, to be honest, because it's my least favorite.
The cockpit feels narrow, the center of gravity is very high, body roll is abundant, and it understeers like mad. The ride isn't as soft as the ES', either.
I know it's an older model due for a redo, but it's about time.
Some of the strong points? Impeccable fit and finish, great quality of materials, beautiful GPS system, soft and plush leather.
So based on that, doubtful that the Acadia would make it to the top of the list. Maybe the Enclave would have a better chance.
Motortrend did give thumbs up to the Veracruz as compared to the Lexus RX350. Maybe signs of things to come when they give out the award?
I'm not sure just how much merit the award has, but in terms of marketing it's a huge victory.
Veracruz would be quite an upset, eh?
I have yet to drive the Veracruz, only climbed into one. It's definitely a huge step forward for Hyundai. The Acadia, on the other hand, is basically a replacement for the Envoy, imo. But it might be the car that helps turn GM around, so you never know what MT might do (and the Envoy did win recently, if I'm not mistaken).
The main reason CX-9 beat out the Acadia was because of the huge price difference for similarly equipped models. With the Outlook, the prices would be much more similar, and the Saturn might even undercut. And in November's MT, in the SUV/Truck/Van buyers guide, thye give the Outlook a higher rating than the Acadia and CX-9.
I think Saturn is extremely deserving, as no one has been able to do what Gm's lambdas have in terms of handling, performance, mpg or interior space. And the interior is just as worthy as any competitor. The Outlook is thecar that is really turning Saturn around.
Looking at past winners, it wouldn't surprise me if they picked something for on the Sport-Luxury side (wasn't the BMW X5 redesigned, and a few Mercedes just came out too?)