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

Crossover SUV Comparison

1…6869717374…142

Comments

  • carlitos92carlitos92 Member Posts: 458
    Driver's comfort definitely goes to the lambdas as studies show that red light is better for your eyes when driving than blue- which makes my head hurt.

    You are absolutely correct about the red lighting being better than the blue.

    However, the "blue lighting" in the Mazdas is really a non-issue. The accent lighting is extremely subdued, to the point that you really don't notice it much - and the blue on the instruments is really just a subtle contrasting backdrop for the text and indicators, which are red, as they should be.

    The bright blue instruments on my old Jetta (which VW touted as a clever feature that made them different) really kick the migraines in, let me tell you...

    -c92
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Pilot's definitely a contender, just an outdated one waiting more desperately than Honda expected for a change. After a remodel, it will definitely top some competitors, like the new Highlander.

    How do you figure it will "definitely top" the new Highlander when we don't know anything about it yet?
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    I didn't realize the Mazda engine was such a fork in the design trunk, but the comment stands, the original 3.5 achieves peak torque at even higher RPMs (4500 vs. 4250) while GM managed to do it at 3200 RPMs.

    Ford *and* Mazda are not at the same level as GM in that department then :-)
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    Right back to the CX-9 's only advantage being performance.

    That is the one point where I don't agree the CX-9 has an advantage for its target market. Straight line acceleration is about the same and it is not like people will be carving canyons while carrying 6+ passengers.

    At any rate, I think we just entered "it is too/it is not" territory...

    ...but I am right ;-)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    At any rate, I think we just entered "it is too/it is not" territory...

    ;) :P :blush: No we're not!
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    At any rate, I think we just entered "it is too/it is not" territory...

    I guess the difference is that when not only are folks here in this forum saying that the driving dynamics are better in the CX-9, but so are several magazine reviews. The Odyssey minivan beat the Town & Country and Sienna in reviews because of the better driving dynamics too, and I don't expect many minivan owners to be "carving canyons." Better driving dynamics is beneficial even during normal driving, as well as being safer.
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    Despite the driver's feeling of more responsiveness, the CX-9 and the Acadia were virtually tied for all but one driving dynamics number, which was braking. Even the MT figure-eight test, a good indicator of canyon-prowess, had both at 28.2 seconds.

    Braking is better, so I would agree to that account.

    My "it is too/it is not" statement was less about performance than about all the other points. The "about the same" comment about parking space maneuverability - despite the CX-9 shorter wheel-base, narrower body and smaller turning radius - made it that much clear.

    PS: The Odyssey beat the other minivans in other departments besides performance. Car & Driver, for instance, also listed "the best front seats, great instrument cluster, nifty second-row mother-in-law seat". It also dinged the Caravan for "rather bleak interior materials".
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    A link would suffice :-)
  • freealfasfreealfas Member Posts: 652
    sorry for trying to save you a click...
  • tsu670tsu670 Member Posts: 293
    Actually, thanks for posting the article instead of the link. It wasn't that long to page down through, and sometimes links have a way of becoming obsolete or inactive after a month or so.
  • tommy3102tommy3102 Member Posts: 8
    Dear Chuckboy,

    As the owner of an '06 Oddysey and now a '08 CX-9 GT I feel qualified to reply about the ad that bugs you.

    I regularly have screaming kids in the car, and I also regularly get hit in the head.

    The Honda beats my old '05 Audi A4 3.0 AWD Convertible for fun. Hard to believe but true. In the convertible I couldn't really hear the passengers screams, and the back seaters only saw the backs of the front seats so the fear never really could build properly in the turns.

    Damn it if I don't get the Honda to flip some day.

    All joking aside I am constantly amazed at how nimble, responsive and yes fun the Odyssey is to drive, when I floor it I love to see how fast it toasts other cars. I will say fully packed with 8 people and luggage it def boged down and would not go above 108 no matter how hard I pushed it.

    Bottomline you are right you are never going to convince a hot chick to hold your grab handle by driving a honda minivan, but hey my wife wouldn't want that anyway. You will get full sheets of plywood, and 10' lengths of pvc pipe in without the tiniest complaints. The Oddysey is my workhorse the CX-9 is my wife's "I am not a soccermom" car, and my get all dressed up and go out without the kids, dogs, neighbors, church choir, book club all at the same time car.

    Tommy
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Achieving torque at a lower RPM does not make it a "better" engine. In reality, the engine should be tuned to fit the vehicle needs for power delivery. Since the GM's are over 400lbs heavier, that torque is *needed* to get the vehicle moving.

    So far, both engines have done well, for all vehicles involved.
  • nxs138nxs138 Member Posts: 481
    Since the GM's are over 400lbs heavier, that torque is *needed* to get the vehicle moving.

    Totally agree, and I would like even more torque: when my wife and I test drove the Acadia, we both noticed sluggishness of the line, and hesitation when trying to accelerate when driving at 40 mph or so. Now this could be due to the faulty transmission software that has now been somewhat rectified, but the Mazda was definitely more responsive, and I believe weight is definitely an issue.

    So to your point, the Acadia definitely needs to achieve most of its torque at lower RPMs, and that's the way the engine was tuned. Once the Acadia gets moving, it performs fine: it gets similar 0-60 and quarter mile numbers than the CX-9.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    Achieving torque at a lower RPM does not make it a "better" engine. In reality, the engine should be tuned to fit the vehicle needs for power delivery. Since the GM's are over 400lbs heavier, that torque is *needed* to get the vehicle moving.

    So far, both engines have done well, for all vehicles involved.

    Well said. My sentiments exactly.

    Low end torque is not something that you need "advanced" engine tech for anyway. Detroit has been making high torque at low RPM engines for decades now.
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    Achieving torque at a lower RPM does not make it a "better" engine. In reality, the engine should be tuned to fit the vehicle needs for power delivery. Since the GM's are over 400lbs heavier, that torque is *needed* to get the vehicle moving.

    You are missing the other portion of the story, the HP numbers are better too. Even the larger Mazda engine is a few HP shy of the GM's.

    Achieving high torque at low rpm AND high horsepower at high rpm is a challenge that GM managed to achieve better than Ford. If you have to spin an engine faster to produce the same amount of torque, given the same combustion efficiency and engine size, you will spend more gas. That is how GM managed to keep the mpg numbers for lambdas low for its size and still tie the CX-9 performance numbers.

    400 lbs of weight are not the issue here. Case in point, Ford uses virtually the same engine in the TX 08 as Mazda does in the CX9 07 (same peak torque/hp rpm) and yet the TX is nearly 400 lbs lighter.
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    Low end torque is not something that you need "advanced" engine tech for anyway. Detroit has been making high torque at low RPM engines for decades now.

    It depends on whether you consider Variable Valve Timing technology advanced. Excluding the large displacement engines used on Detroit muscle cars, smaller push-rods have largely fallen out of public's favor for their lack of power at high rpm. It is hard to move those rods fast enough, valve floating and all that.
  • unixxusunixxus Member Posts: 97
    Even the larger Mazda engine is a few HP shy of the GM's.

    The Mazda engine has a whole lot more torque than the GM so it makes perfect sense that the Mazda engine will reach peak torque at a higher rpm.
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    The Mazda engine has a whole lot more torque than the GM so it makes perfect sense that the Mazda engine will reach peak torque at a higher rpm.

    The torque for the Corvette LS-6 engine should peak at 8000 rpm then :-)

    Peak torque and peak rpm are not related that way. To illustrate that point with an extreme example, the Mazdaspeed 3 engine has a higher peak torque than both CX-9 and the Outlook (280 lbft) and yet it happens at a very low 3000 rpm.

    Peak numbers only tell part of the story, as an engine may achieve higher torque than others through part of the rpm range but still have a lower peak torque. That is why one would never try and have that Mazdaspeed engine on the CX-9, it peaks high and abruptly without sufficient low-end torque to adequately move a loaded 5000+ lbs monster from idle. When they put it on the CX-7, they wisely tuned it to deliver a flatter curve with considerably lower peak torque (240+ lbft)
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    DENTS IN TOYOTA'S ARMOR

    Come on people! did we not already see this? The Lexus GS got bad ratings from the godly CR 2 YEARS AGO.

    I appologize for forcing my oppinion that CR isn't biased to Toyota.

    It's funny about the Chrysler Vehicles that CR says are realiable, as they may all be on the chopping board RIGHT NOW.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    braking, handling and just about every other driving dynamic for those who care about such things...of course braking distance is definitely a safety issue as well.

    Braking distances are worse in the CX-9.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    That is the one point where I don't agree the CX-9 has an advantage for its target market. Straight line acceleration is about the same and it is not like people will be carving canyons while carrying 6+ passengers.

    So what you're saying is that neither one is better and that the buyer can only really choose based on looks/styling?
    I guess I can agree with that (though that's probably not what you're saying).

    That is the right way to look at it though.
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    MT drove the Acadia and the CX-9 back to back. The 60-0 braking numbers were 138ft (Acadia) vs. 123 ft (CX-9) but got them tied for handling numbers.

    Popular mechanics had them tied for braking but got better handling numbers on the CX-9

    Do you have any source showing the CX-9 braking numbers to be worse than the lambdas?
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    Was the Ford Taurus X in the Test? If not, it should have been.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    I got my numbers from Consumer Reports. They said CX-9 had long dry and wet distances.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Seemed like to me it would be in the COTY test instead. Of course, most of these cars are just overgrown station wagons anyway, so who am I to judge. The Ford version just seems especially "wagon-y".
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    I don't know what the big deal is to say that the CX-9 drives better than the lambdas. The differences may not matter to a lot of folks. A lot of folks drive the Sienna instead of the Odyssey even though the Odyssey routinely wins on driving dynamics.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    I noticed that the step-in height for the Acadia is about 19" in the front and 20" in the rear (http://www.blog.automotiveaddicts.com/2007-gmc-acadia-test-drive) as compared to my Freestyle that I measured at about 15". I'm not sure what any others are, but I wouldn't want to climb up an additional 4-5" and it seems like a lot for kids too. Anyone know if the Acadias numbers are accurate? I measured from the ground to the top of the door sill.
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    I got my numbers from Consumer Reports. They said CX-9 had long dry and wet distances.

    What they said is not important, I want to know what they measured. Fork the numbers or concede the point :-)
  • mrblonde49mrblonde49 Member Posts: 626
    All joking aside I am constantly amazed at how nimble, responsive and yes fun the Odyssey is to drive, when I floor it I love to see how fast it toasts other cars. I will say fully packed with 8 people and luggage it def boged down and would not go above 108 no matter how hard I pushed it. "

    All joking aside? I hope that 108 with 8 people in a fully loaded van with screaming kids IS a joke....
  • freealfasfreealfas Member Posts: 652
    maybe it's kph and if so, that's not all that bad...but I doubt it...
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    I got my numbers from Consumer Reports. They said CX-9 had long dry and wet distances.

    Their numbers are useless for comparing two or more vehicles. Mainly because they don't test them together on the same day in the same conditions. MT shows 127 feet from 60 for the CX-9 and 124 feet for the Enclave. Pretty much a wash IMO.

    Oddly enough, the smaller utes were the ones which had the longest stopping distances save for the Veracruz. The latter took 134 ft. on that day according to MT which isn't bad either IMO.
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    MT shows 127 feet from 60 for the CX-9 and 124 feet for the Enclave. Pretty much a wash IMO.

    When they tested the CX-9 and the Acadia back to back, the CX-9 stopped at 123 ft vs 138 for the Acadia. The weather was snowy according to the pictures.

    Do slippery roads favor lighter vehicles while braking? I would think so, but never saw any test.

    However, Popular Mechanics also tested a CX-9 and an Outlook back to back and got a virtual tie.

    I am yet to see any braking numbers showing the CX-9 being *worse* than a lambda...

    ...so we can add that advantage to interior design, equipment, value, and driver comfort. :-D
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    To illustrate that point with an extreme example, the Mazdaspeed 3 engine has a higher peak torque than both CX-9 and the Outlook (280 lbft) and yet it happens at a very low 3000 rpm.

    That's a forced induction engine. You cannot really compare that with an n/a engine. However, in the CX-7 engine, it achieves 258 lb-ft at 2,500 rpm's, all through the power band, with peak HP at 244 at a higher RPM.

    I really do not see such an advantage to the GM with how it delivers the power over the 3.7L Mazda. So, since you give the advantage to GM in that dept., you must say that GM is at a huge loss in the total vehicle design department because they built a vehicle that is over weight, and bulky.
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    That's a forced induction engine. You cannot really compare that with an n/a engine.

    I was illustrating the point that higher torque does not necessarily translate into peak torque at higher RPMs. I probably need to lookup some data on the power curves for both engines before debating it too much.

    So, since you give the advantage to GM in that dept., you must say that GM is at a huge loss in the total vehicle design department

    On the contrary, because of that engine, they got virtually the same acceleration/passing numbers as the CX-9 all the way to 70 mph, the same mpg, yet hauling more people and cargo. That carrying capacity, combined with a pleasant exterior design and one of the best GM interiors (sans Cadillac) so far seems to be winning buyers from all other brands.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    When they tested the CX-9 and the Acadia back to back, the CX-9 stopped at 123 ft vs 138 for the Acadia. The weather was snowy according to the pictures.

    The numbers I posted were from the SUVOTY competition and the CX-9 and Enclave were tested on the same day in that case. Does the Enclave stop that much better than the Acadia?
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    Com'on Bob- we've been over this. Since the FS/TX unlike the lambdas doesn't pretend to be an SUV instead of a station wagon, they don't feel the need to have ground clearance, resulting in haveing about 3 inches less. That still leaves an inch and a half extra, but you could see yourself stepping up that much more.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    But it was in the test in '05. Don't see why not now?
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    If the Ody really did 108 loaded, I hope his wife "jacked him up" for acting so foolishly.

    Dodge Caravan is quicker 0-60. Edmunds says it's the quickest minivan they've tested.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    I am yet to see any braking numbers showing the CX-9 being *worse* than a lambda...

    Does anyone get Consumer Reports? If so get the issue with the CUV test, where the Outlook took 1st. I read it in a magazine/ book store, so I don't have it.

    ...so we can add that advantage to interior design, equipment, value, and driver comfort.

    Like I said, less cheesy ineterior, red lights, more equipment, smaller center console for more driver/passenger space, better value. And I will find the CR braking numbers. So interior design,equipment, value, braking distances and driver comfort= advantage Lambda. Nice try. ;)
  • freealfasfreealfas Member Posts: 652
    sounds like the good old days of the FS/lambda wars that used to rage around here lately...

    sitting back laughing to myself with feet up and a beer at hand...
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    You are so right. Crack one open for me too.
  • nxs138nxs138 Member Posts: 481
    Does anyone get Consumer Reports? If so get the issue with the CUV test, where the Outlook took 1st. I read it in a magazine/ book store, so I don't have it.

    According to CR:
    Braking from 60 mph:
    Mazda CX-9: 150 feet
    Saturn Outlook: 142 feet
  • nxs138nxs138 Member Posts: 481
    because of that engine, they got virtually the same acceleration/passing numbers as the CX-9 all the way to 70 mph, the same mpg, yet hauling more people and cargo.

    There's a whole other story that you're forgetting here, in terms of mpg: the transmission was specifically programmed to give better fuel economy. It does a very quick 1-2-3 shift, and holds gears a long time (especially 5th). Kinda painful when going up inclines and it doesn't want to shift into 4th. GM Insiders have noted that although they have reprogrammed the transmission software, they couldn't really make it more "sporty" because it would result in lower mpg.

    So the engine is definitely the whole story here, and actually I would say that the way the transmission software is the main factor in better/same mpg.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    Does anyone get Consumer Reports? If so get the issue with the CUV test, where the Outlook took 1st. I read it in a magazine/ book store, so I don't have it.

    According to CR:
    Braking from 60 mph:
    Mazda CX-9: 150 feet
    Saturn Outlook: 142 feet

    Guys, CR does not test the vehicles on the same day in the same conditions. Please don't use their numbers as reference because it is very misleading. Nastacio and I previously posted numbers from head to head comparisons where the CX-9 was tested on the same day as two different Lamdas. One time it did better, the other time it didn't.

    For all we know CR could have tested one in the snow and one on a 100+ degree road.
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    sounds like the good old days of the FS/lambda wars that used to rage around here lately...

    It certainly does, hard data on one side, "it is too" on the other.

    Still trying to figure out the whole 30+ cu.ft of cargo capacity difference? :shades:
  • freealfasfreealfas Member Posts: 652
    I'm just happy to see someone other than me thinking, excuse me, POSTING that they think the lambda's are overweight...

    As for the capacity, I lost interest in that conversation pretty much when it was over here as I'm still happy with our purchase.

    I could only imagine what else we'd be reading if atexeria was in on this latest diatribe as well...

    still chuckling quietly on the sidelines with gregg_vw sipping another cold frosty one...
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    I'm just asking any lambda owner to measure the distance because the ground clearance distance isn't measured from the doorsill, but from the lowest point on the car where-ever that may be.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Still trying to figure out the whole 30+ cu.ft of cargo capacity difference?

    I still say it's a combination of the narrower width of the FS and height of the cargo hold...see below.

    http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/FordTaurusX/
    "The seatback folds down, and then the whole seat pivots backward to make a load floor that aligns with the second-row seat. Even the front passenger seat can fold forward to accommodate something 9 feet long. The one drawback is that the cargo hold isn’t very tall."
    http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/FordTaurusX/Images/Load-Floor.jpg

    vs Acadia
    http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/GMCAcadia/Images/LoadFloor.jpg
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    I still say it's a combination of the narrower width of the FS and height of the cargo hold...see below.

    And I completely agree with you, but after two beers one could suggest GM was cooking the numbers.
  • nastacionastacio Member Posts: 370
    It does a very quick 1-2-3 shift, and holds gears a long time (especially 5th)

    It should do quick shifts thought. Unless you are under full-throttle, what is the point of revving past the peak torque rpm (3200) other than keeping the engine in the sweet range for the next gear?

    What got me though, was gear hunting during our test drive.
    Flooring it while going up an incline sent the transmission from 6th to 4th, then to 5th and back to 4th. Within 1-2 seconds, the thing started moving with some gusto.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles