Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Let's see now the updated Murano turns out.
Trucks are great for what they're intended to do - haul and tow. If you have a boat, an Explorer is probably better for towing than an Edge.
Thing is, few SUV owners actually used those abilities. When they were selling in record numbers, it was mostly soccer moms buying them up. Go to soccer practice and I bet it wouldn't be hard to find a dozen SUVs parked next to each other, and maybe one or two of them had a tow hitch.
I totally agree. But like I said, you can get an SUV like the Explorer for much less than what you can get a comparably equipped CUV now. I haven't done the math but I'm betting the purchase savings more than makes up for the very slight difference in fuel costs.
Crossovers are more car-like and pamper those soccer moms a little better.
I don't agree with that 100%. I can get every feature any of these CUVs has in a traditional SUV nowadays. In fact, I can get the sunroof with rear DVD player (a must in our vehicles nowadays unfortunately) in an Explorer wheras I can't necessarily do that in all the CUVs.
I can take the boys to soccer practice then come home and pull a small tree stump out of the ground. I like having those options even though I hardly ever need them.
That being said we're probably going to downsize when the lease is up on the Explorer in '09. The Edge looks like a good candidate right now followed by the Tribeca and TX. Those are the only three we like that come with a rear DVD system from the factory right now anyway. An Escape or CX-7 is a perfect size too, but alas, no factory rear DVD in them.
We just went to a wedding in Tampa and the bride has a loaded Mountaineer. I sat in the 2nd row seat to check it out. The console is nice, but I didn't like the seating arrangement because you only fit 2 in that row and we need 3.
The DVD screen was tiny! Not really fair, as I have an aftermarket 12.1" one, but that thing must have been just 7" if that.
She worked for Ford marketing and was laid off recently, but got the car with employee discounts, $24 grand for one loaded to the gills, which is amazing. She was actually trying to sell it to me since she doesn't have kids!
So she's been driving around in that thing alone with a DVD player sitting there, idle.
I think she wants a Fusion, since she can still get the employee discounts (via a consulting gig), and her commute is long so she's not happy with the gas mileage.
Maybe I should have asked for a test drive. It's not really what we're looking for, though.
Why do you insist on a factory DVD? You gotta see the screen on mine, that might change your mind.
I'm not going to go into more discussion because this is getting way off topic.
I'd rather take the 7 in. It's factory covered (so the dealer ship can fix it- probably at no charge) and it won't block the rear veiw mirror.
Plus, current screens offer more like 8 or 9 inch screens. Some may have 10.
And it is nothing more than a G wagon. What's the ground clearance? 5 inches?
Totally agree, except I think even the RDX looks better. I am just not on the same wavelength as Infiniti design lately. I liked the FX; just thought it was too impractical, even compared to the original G35. This new thing looks like it ripped off a LOT of Hyundai in the rump area if you ask me.
Still, it'll be quick-ish, and will do well, I'm sure. More power to 'em, I guess.
Depends on the year. It's 8" in our '06 but they increased it to 9" for '07 and on. That's pretty standard for the factory screens across the board.
Why do you insist on a factory DVD?
We lease our family haulers, and therefore it is fully covered and residualized when it comes from the factory. Our dealer will residualize an aftermarket unit if we have it done by their "recommended" shop.
I sat in the 2nd row seat to check it out. The console is nice, but I didn't like the seating arrangement because you only fit 2 in that row and we need 3.
We don't have the console so 3 fit comfortably across in the second row. Ours is an XLT and the higher trims often come with the console. At least from what I've seen.
Now that's actually very funny because the GM trucks were the ones which were only facelifted! Pretty much nothing changed underneath. Sure they might look better/newer to you on the outside but they all still have the same old live rear axle and grossly overweight 3rd row which you have to take out and store in your garage to use the space. Welcome to the 80s GM! :sick:
We test drove an '04 Explorer back in '04 but didn't buy it because it was a little rough around the edges. The '06 was a completely different vehicle even though it didn't look all that much different on the outside. The inside sure has changed too.
But the fact about these SUVs and their current fall from grace has already been stated. No matter what GM and Ford do to make them better, and still call them real trucks, they still aren't going to sell.
Sure it looks a little better (and some won't give it that) and the interior is more refined, and it is more responsive because of the power boost. Ford is known for doing these relatively big updates, but that is because Ford always has to play catchup. More power, nicer interior, slightly different look? They just did that to the Durango in '07. It happens all the time, especially to the American brands.
The GM trucks were so far ahead of Ford in remodeling. The interior is TOTALLY different- not just a nicer dash panel here and there, and some better leather colors. Power comes from a different engine. Size is different. The ride is so much better, compared to the Expedition, and if you sit in the third row of an Explorer, you think it's bouncing on hydraulics. Huge improvement, Ford. The only place where they dropped the ball is in the third row, and they don't have to worry about the not fold into the floor seats, because the lambdas will pick up that slack. So I think we know he wins this one.
At least GM got the clue and is dropping their midsize SUVs for these lambdas (and another crossover) unlike Ford, who picked the wrong time to same a name (how about 500, or let's go back further- the Taurus!).
I know you want to stick for your investment, and you most likely made the best decision for you. But let's not make blatent statement to prove yours is better(GM is who did a facelift!).
I'm going to end this right now by answering my own question. MT probably didn't test the TX because they wanted to keep numbers down. If it weren't true, the Acadia and Outlook would be out there too.
9" should be fine. Maybe hers was 8" and it just seemed small because I'm used to looking at a bigger one.
The Tribeca has a 9" DVD player. I had one as a loaner in 2006 and we liked that.
Several people have sat in the third row of ours and it's been deemed very comfortable. BTW, shock absorbers are hydraulic so what you said does make a lot of sense. :P
The only place where they dropped the ball is in the third row, and they don't have to worry about the not fold into the floor seats, because the lambdas will pick up that slack. So I think we know he wins this one.
Not for the big ones like the Tahoe or Suburban it won't. The third rows in those are not nearly as nice as what you get in a Nissan or Ford third row.
At least GM got the clue and is dropping their midsize SUVs for these lambdas
Not the Chevy yet. And by the time they do the Flex will be out to compete with the Lambdas. Then instead of eliminating the Explorer Ford is supposedly making it a unibody. The latter may spell the end of the TX IMO.
I know you want to stick for your investment, and you most likely made the best decision for you.
Yes I did make the right decision. The 2+ hour trip I spent as a passenger in my friend's TrailBlazer verified that 100%. If you think the Explorer is behind take a ride in one of them. I've also sat in an Acadia or two and I'm not impressed with the interior. Is it nicer than the old GM interiors? Most definitely. But it's no better than any Ford or Chrysler I've been in either. They've finally started playing catch up too as you would say.
But let's not make blatent statement to prove yours is better(GM is who did a facelift!).
Obviously albook, you're not taking the time to read the articles I've posted so I'm done wasting my time arguing this too.
I built a new Tribeca on Subaru's site and they made me opt for the Limited trim to get the rear DVD. I hate when mfrs do that! Hopefully they change that by the time were ready to lease again. I like the new duds and the price is right.
Didn't drive it though, just sat in it.
True, the third row is spacious for its class, but the ride quality of the Explorer is not smooth at all. And I have spent a few hours n all three rows of the Explorer, so I know. The Explorer is much nicer than the Trailblazer, but I wasn't comparing the two. I was comparing the Expedition to the Tahoe, as my post says. And the Tahoe clearly wins for ride quality and interior- better than the Explorer too (but they aren't competitors, so I didn't include in my comparison).
Not the Chevy yet. And by the time they do the Flex will be out to compete with the Lambdas. Then instead of eliminating the Explorer Ford is supposedly making it a unibody. The latter may spell the end of the TX IMO.
But GM couldn't introduce all four at once, and its a possibility the Chevy will be out the same time as the Flex.
But it's no better than any Ford or Chrysler I've been in either. They've finally started playing catch up too as you would say.
Now I really think you're sticking up for your investment. As a whole company, the interiors of Ford GM, and Chrysler all have their strong points, but SUV? GM clearly wins in the full size category.
Not for the big ones like the Tahoe or Suburban it won't. The third rows in those are not nearly as nice as what you get in a Nissan or Ford third row.
Which I said in my post. GM dropped the ball in the third row. But slam dunk/ home run/ TD with pretty much everything else.
But it's no better than any Ford or Chrysler I've been in either. They've finally started playing catch up too as you would say.
Now I really think you're sticking up for your investment. As a whole company, the interiors of Ford GM, and Chrysler all have their strong points, but SUV? GM clearly wins in the full size category.
You talk about others not reading your articles. Take your advice sometime.
Interiors are totally subjective which is why I won't declare a winner. Obviously I prefer Ford interiors while you prefer GM interiors and MT liked both which is evidenced by the articles I posted. BTW, I did read them contrary to your belief. Did you also notice that MT picked the Expedition (which was a pre-production version) over the Tahoe in their comparo?
but the ride quality of the Explorer is not smooth at all. And I have spent a few hours n all three rows of the Explorer, so I know.
Well, I drive an Explorer every day through the hills an potholes of Western PA and it is a very comfortable controlled ride IMO. I'm not sure what was wrong with the copy you rode in so we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. :shades:
It would be funny if it did, because we would have come full circle.
First, it was station wagons that families used to get around in.
Then came the minivan.
Then came the SUV.
Now the US market to be transitioning towards crossovers.
So that would be hilarious.
I don't think it will happen, though, because automakers tend to push whatever brings them the highest profit margins, and wagons ain't it!
Whoa there big fella. As a Yukon 04 XL owner, I much prefer the interior look of the same gen. Expedition. Almost bought new this time, and looked at both the 07 EL/Max and Suburban. GM did definately improve on the last version but there was no clear winner IMHO, even given my predisposition against the angular look the new Ford interiors are taking.
What's best depends on your priorities, but they made a compromise in packaging that 3rd row seat.
Lincoln had a little fun with that in their marketing, did you see the ad with the personal trainer and the finger (showing off the power folding 3rd row)?
To get us back on track the Lambdas 3rd rows fold away, so no removing seats to get the full cargo capacity on GM's crossovers.
I've seen a couple out on the roads, too.
One catch with HSD on the HL is that the rear axle gets electric power only, and it's not connected to the gas engine.
That sort of stretches the definition of AWD. It's basically a part-time electric boost only to the rear wheels.
I'm not biased toward any maker (like some who are die hard Toyota/ Honda fans and will never own anything else), which is why I can unbiasedly say that I like the interiors of the GM full size SUVs bettter. I like how they seem more flowing and refined than the Expedition. But I guess that is still a preference thing.
I can't remember exactly, but I think when the Tahoe was first tested by MT, they gave 1st place to the Tahoe over the Expedition.
The Explorer I rode in was driven through the streets and on highways of California, in sunny weather (so that's not a factor) but you are more used to driving a real truck based SUV than I am. I still give ride quality to the Tahoe, but much of that may be that it is newer.
So, yeah- agreeing to disagree.
and I'd rather see diesel's applied to this segment than hybrid's due to the cost...
Sorry, I typed the wrong Chevy. The MT comparo pitted the Suburban against an Expedition EL. Both 2007s.
The Explorer I rode in was driven through the streets and on highways of California, in sunny weather (so that's not a factor) but you are more used to driving a real truck based SUV than I am.
I actually gave that some thought and realized that tire pressure could play a role in that also. I keep my tires 3-5 PSI above the mfr recommended number which may be why I don't feel the bounce.
One thing I'm curious about is how these CUVs handle when loaded down. Our Explorer, and the larger SUVs as well, actually seems to handle better when loaded down as most body on frame trucks tend to do. I know our old Escape handled worse with more weight in it but how do these big unibody beasts handle with a bunch of people and gear in them? Do they roll and sway like our Escape did?
One of the reasons the Prius succeeded is because it has unique styling. It stands out, and people know right away it's a hybrid.
So by offering that smaller van/crossover as a hybrid only in the USA, it could have that same benefit - it would be instantly recognizable as a hybrid.
It would also be light enough to run on battery power longer than a Highlander, or any van or SUV in Toyota's lineup.
Link to article:
http://news.windingroad.com/countriesmarkets/japan/japan-report-toyota-debuts-ma- rk-x-zio/
They could offer this in the US as a hybrid only. It's smaller and lighter than the Highlander so it would be more fuel efficient, a critical factor to hybrid shoppers.
Make AWD an option and market it as a Hybrid Crossover.
Hurry too because Honda will probably have a diesel Pilot and CR-V before they could have it ready.
Well, that's easy- Have you ever driven a minvan? It's like that, except quicker and better handling in MOST cases.
Chuckhoy told about his experience in an Outlook. I'm sure someone has some good Freestyle stories.
I test drove every crossover I could think of, and didn't find one that handled as well as you imply they do. I basically gave up, and concluded getting a family car meant giving up the fun-to-drive aspect, at least in my price range.
The CX9 comes closest, but I bet an Odyssey could get around an autoX course quicker. Remember how much slower the accident-avoidance-manuever average speeds were for crossovers in CR?
On the zoom-zoom department, hands down to the Sienna. It will show tailights to all of them without feeling stressed. The Outlook struggled far more in our fully-loaded test (6 passengers on an incline,) with gear hunting and more engine noise than real action.
The Odyssey handled well, but at the cost of an ultra-low ground-clearance. The transmission was not as smooth as in the CX-9 and Sienna, with some head-bobbing motions upon shifts under full throttle.
Despite all the 'handling' hype around the CX-9, it didn't feel more agile than any of the others, except on parking lots due to its shorter wheelbase (7 inches less on average. )
The magazines take these things to closed tracks and maybe they behave differently at hold-on-to-your-cheerios speeds. Nothing that anyone in this thread will ever experience though (unless they go work for said magazines.)
I'm not going to pick apart your assessment of these vehicles nastacio. It's your opinion and we're all better for hearing it.
However, I'd like to note that "zoom-zoom" does not apply to straight line acceleration alone,.but rather the whole sporting nature of a vehicle. Mazda is traditionaly better at sparking that feel/emotion than any other mainstream mfr IMO and according to most publications if you follow along with them. We've argued this ad-nauseum in the mid-size sedans thread because the Accord and Camry both outrun the current Mazda6 in a drag race. But when you add some curves, which in my experience most roads do have, the Mazda catches up rather quickly. To some that is more fun than straight line acceleration.
I have not driven any of these CUVs so I can't offer my own opinion. But I can usually feel what the mags are talking about when they praise Mazdas for their "zoom-zoom" factor. I don't expect the CX-9 to be any different, but obviously you didn't agree and I have to ask why? Curious minds want to know! :shades:
First, let me add that straight-line acceleration adds to the fun factor, as does the engine note while doing so. That is a comment from someone driving a 6MT V6 Accord Coupe. The engine note after 4000 rpm is just exhilarating for the price range. The Toyota doesn't have a great engine note, but accelerates fast without head-bobbing motions during shifts.
The CX-9 is too tall, too heavy to replicate the zoom-zoom factor found on a Miata or Mazda 3. As for the Mazda 6, C&D stated that the Mazda 6 felt quicker than an Accord on turns, but that it was actually slower while doing so.
If you look at the MT figure 8 test, which is mostly curves, a CX-9 didn't fare any better than an Acadia. There is really no credit to be given there unless the testers used a subjective assessment because the CX-9 "felt" faster.
Now, let's look at a Mazda 3 and the reality of good handling. With 160hp, it was just as fast as a Porsche Boxter in that same test. That is Zoom-Zoom.
I didn't drive through tight corners though (less than 90 degress), when I think the CX-9 shorter wheel base really would yield better agility.
And as [ateixeira] posted here, minivans have about the same numbers on emergency lane change maneuvers than other CUVs. If I am not mistaken, the Sienna even edged the Outlook and CX-9 by a little bit.
I'm going to try to stay on-topic as much as possible, so I'll try to focus on the crossovers.
Drive a Pilot and an Odyssey back to back. The crossover has a much harsher ride and feels a lot heavier, so at least IMHO the crossover certainly does not handle better.
Highlander is smaller than Toyota's van, so that's a closer call. Plus I have not driven the new one. The RX350 rides well but does not handle well, so I'd say the crossover loses in this case, too.
In GM's case, the Uplander wasn't a competitive product, so yeah, you could say the Lamdbas ride better for sure, and probably handle better too. But that's why the Uplander is gone.
Let's see, Ford? Freestar is gone, uncompetitive.
Chrysler. They just announced the Pacifica is being dropped. I'm not sure if it handles better than their new vans, which just came out. I kinda doubt it.
Who else? Nissan? Well, Nissan's Murano doesn't have 3 rows of seats, but I'd take a Quest over a Pathfinder on an autocross course any day.
Hyundai? Veracruz vs. Entourage would be interesting. I haven't driven the Veracruz, though, so I can't comment.
Most of these crossovers do have a creamy ride, but I'm not sure I'd agree that they handle better than minivans do.
Then there are also the different states of tune for each platform, for example the Buick Enclave is more isolated than the Outlook or Acadia, so the ride/handling bias leans more towards a cushy ride.
Compare Car & Driver's road tests from the last couple of months and lateral grip ties with the Sienna (the van most biased towards a smooth ride over handling, just like the Enclave is tuned), and falls well behind in acceleration and fuel economy.
My main point: I'm surprised albook equated a large crossover with a full payload's handling with a minivan. Does he realize the Enclave was some 1200 lbs heavier than the Sienna? So it's the other way around.
Perhaps I didn't understand what he meant. :confuse:
I drive a Mustang GT. You don't know what fun is. Trust me. :P
As for the Mazda 6, C&D stated that the Mazda 6 felt quicker than an Accord on turns, but that it was actually slower while doing so.
Link? I do recall one comparo saying the Accord handled better, going by the test numbers of course, but I can't find it again. IIRC it was the only one, of many mind you, to show such a difference, and I want to see if there was a good explanation. Like a more tossable I4 model vs. a front heavy V6 model or something like that. That one comparo was the exception to the norm.
The CX-9 is too tall, too heavy to replicate the zoom-zoom factor found on a Miata or Mazda 3.
No kidding? But within this class why did you feel it wasn't the zoom-zoom champ?
If you look at the MT figure 8 test, which is mostly curves, a CX-9 didn't fare any better than an Acadia. There is really no credit to be given there unless the testers used a subjective assessment because the CX-9 "felt" faster.
"Feel" is part of the zoom-zoom philosophy too. I had a Mazda6 S before the Mustang and even though it wasn't the best performing sedan out there, it certainly felt like it was to me.
Does the Odyssey have the same steering system as a Pilot? If it does, then I doubt it. The CX has a speed sensing steering system that regulates hydrolic boost which makes maneuvers effortless in corners and accident avoidance.
I had the CX on an autocross track, driven back to back to back with the 2007 Honda Pilot and 2007 Highlander. The Pilot was pitiful. Too much driver effort was needed to steer.
I know these are not sports cars, but, I figured I would mention what I experienced first hand.
For the most part these are soft-riding, bulky, and heavy, and not what I consider sporty.
Nothing wrong with that given the primary duty of hauling around big families.
Pretty sweet that you get to go to events like that regularly. I got to attend the Subaru Tribeca event in 2006, and sampled a Pilot, Murano, and XC90. Someone nearly rolled the Murano, it was up on 2 wheels! :surprise:
Pilot is due for a re-do so let's see if Honda can improve in that area.
That almost happened in the Pilot when I went. I was not driving, or in the vehicle, thank God!
Pilot is due for a re-do so let's see if Honda can improve in that area.
It should be an improvement. I wonder if SH-AWD will be used, instead of 4WD.
SH-AWD is far more advanced, so hopefully. I'm just not sure if they can do it at Pilot price levels.
The RD-X has it but the CR-V doesn't for instance. Even the RD-X doesn't get the CF driveshaft from the Acura RL, to cut costs.
Honda and Acura both utilize VTEC and iVTEC, why not SH-AWD in the future?
I'm sure there has been an abundance of technology handed down from Acura to Honda. Heck, a few years ago, only Acura's had Nav. Now you can get a Civic w/ Nav.
True but all the catchy monikers are all taken already!!
Names like Seville, Legend, Bonneville, and Protege at least were moderately interesting. Not like STS, TL, G8, and 3.