Well the average Camry buyer is over 50- and we don't discuss how they may be wrong in thier rankings. The Enclave is an all around good CUV. It drives very well, provides good acceleration, and best in class space, plus luxury and technology that can't be beat at this price. The person that just bought an Enclave made a great choice.
But according one of GM ex. directors acadia was design as SUV, then they called it for the marketing propose.
Do you have a citation??
In future they will produce minivan on same platform.
Um GM got out of the minivan business because they couldn't compete and the Acadia/Outlook/Enclave are the replacements. I don't see GM getting back into minivans.
They share resemblance (as do most cars that are redesigned) with each other, but after all, they also share the same nameplate.
I have to disagree. The new Highlander is very much like the old one- to the point that this is where they dropped the ball. Toyota didn't improve it nearly enough. It falls short.
When I was buying a car I look at 1.price, 2. driving experiece, 3. options, 4. cargo space if 3rd seat up, 5. better deal, mean to fit in my budget, 6. deal for trade my old car, 7. dealership and their free extras. I looked (drove couple times)GM, Highlander, CX-9, Commander, Veracruz, Pilot, Taurus X. I have never buy with extras option, I think it waist of money. You'll never get your money back. The Acadia was better, then everything else, more space, like a ride, quite in side, Onstar good system, fuel good for this size, good engine. Conn : wish interior (dash) was made it better,
You do know your facts, but you are totally off on what a crossover is.
The original definition of a crossover is an SUV body on a CAR platform. The lambdas are the first CUV that have platforms which were developed specifically for a CUV. There is nothing wrong with a CUV being based off a car. The original Acura MDX was one of the first CUVs, and has still yet to be surpassed by some CUVs like the Ford Edge, and Nissan Murano (which is also nice), and the Volvo XC90. I'd say before the Lambdas and the CX-9, the First MDX- which is CAR BASED was the best CUV on the road.
And about driving experience, most people buy CUVs because they want something that looks like an SUV but drives like a CAR. So it can be good to be based off a car, because that is what they are going for.
Ok, you won't answer my question. Are we on time delay or something? I ask a question, and you reply to my post with something completely different.
Why is the car-based CUV idea inferior to the Lambdas. We know why you chose it, but in what ways is the Lambda platform better than other car-based platforms? You talked so much about how superior the GM triplets were because they were on a platform that was yet to be shared with other vehicles/cars. I'm not seeing any facts (or opinions) for that matter to let me know you know what you are talking about as far as the platform is concerned.
Well, I tend to look at user reviews who are posting MPG and many many of them are complaining about poor MPG they getting from their Acadias and Outlooks with numbers as ridiculous as 17-18MPG on highway and 13-14 in the city. To me this is unacceptable. Again, I think all those new vehicles need at least 3 -5 years of driving experience when we can take in account reliability issues. They all may look good now but after several years we will have better picture who is who.
Well the average Camry buyer is over 50- and we don't discuss how they may be wrong in their rankings
First, this is not a Toyota Camry discussion, so that is why you don't see that here. Plus, Toyota as a company have have above average reliability for many many years, and have a proven track record. GM does not, but, have made strides in the right direction.
Basically a CUV is unibody construction and an SUV is body on frame construction. All cars are unibody, so, that is why CUV's have a "carlike" platform. Since every manufacturer already has a car platform, they modify into an SUV like vehicle. But, since it is not a body on frame, it is not an SUV. That is why they are called CUV's.
And about driving experience, most people buy CUVs because they want something that looks like an SUV but drives like a CAR
"ridiculous as 17-18MPG on highway and 13-14 in the city." Wrong from 15 to 26 dependence of AWD or FWD. It dependence how you driving, speed, how you take off from traffic light abd of course AWD will consume more . I got on FWD mix city and highway about 22-24. Do you have numbers for other car for compare. If not don't post. Toyota forum: from 15 to 22 for AWD.
Why is the car-based CUV idea inferior to the Lambdas
There's nothing inferior about it, platforms are designed to be multi-functional these days, and it's a non-issue with customers (except for one, apparently!)
And, ironically enough, if you read the forums you'll find the Lambdas spend a lot more time in the shop than, say, the Mazda CX-9 (based on 2007 data from truedelta). So dedicated platform does not mean better reliability.
I hope you won't get offended when I say that I don't believe a single word of that.
The 2008 EPA numbers for the FWD Acadia are 16 City and 24 Hwy. So in a MIX of driving (which people would assume is about 50/50 city/hwy) you get up to 24 mpg???
That contradicts what I read on the Acadia forums -- people seem to get at best 24 mpg on highway only (calculating using pen and paper, not the DIC), and averaging about 19-20 in a mix of city and hwy. There are many who get worse than that.
"And, ironically enough, if you read the forums you'll find the Lambdas spend a lot more time in the shop than, say, the Mazda CX-9 (based on 2007 data from truedelta). So dedicated platform does not mean better reliability." I don't know about time, but all cars have recalls, even most reliable Camry, which drop below average. I don't believe in the reports from Consumer Report, because they called 98' Explorer as avoid used car back there, I bought when mileage was 26,000 in 00 and sold when it was 120k in 05. I had two times in shop for recalled. That's it. I changed brakes pads, oil and tires.
If you think about it, a platform has nothing to do with reliability.
Well the thread has turned into how much better of a ride and handling the Lambdas are because they have a dedicated platform (when we all know that stiffness, suspension, tires, etc. affect all that, no matter what platform you have). So why not throw in reliability while we're at it!!! Maybe the dedicated platform is flawed and that is why Acadia owners have had issues with transmission software, door leaks, batteries dying, driveline bolts coming loose, etc. etc!
I'm being just a bit sarcastic, by the way. Probably time for me to stop responding to the thread...
Even here on Edmunds there are plenty of reviews about poor MPG of Acadias and Outlooks. Look at Yahoo autos reviews you will find the same. EPA estimates are interesting because I am getting way more with my TX then their estimate :confuse:
All other CUV have same bad mpg for AWD and not so bad FWD. I read all posts for those CUV same complain,that you mention in your post. So if you want full size CUV/SUV you got to pay money for fuel.Most people and me getting 17-19 on stop and go traffic and 21-25 highway for FWD. EPA is only for advertising .I can't complain, my old car Acura 3.2TL did about 23-25 on highway and about 18-19 in traffic.
I saw your carspace page and a previous post from you. I am in the market for an s-plan Mazda 3 4 door i touring. I am being told over and over again that the destination/transportation/bank fee (called all these names at different places) of 595 is not included in the s-plan invoice but extra. Do you know if this is true? I am in NYC.
Plus, Toyota as a company have have above average reliability for many many years
And whose track record has badly been battered in the last two years. Call it however you want- there is NOTHING flawed about Buick's consumer reliabiltiy ratings.
Didn't the Lexus RX300 debut around the same time as the MDX? It also won many accolades too!
Actually debuted before, but that's more of a Luxury CUV, while the MDX wasn't as much luxury in my oppinion. Plus- the RX has no whee near as much room. The MDX was a nice spacious family CUV.
My Outlook gets about 16-18 when driven almost exclusively around town and a smidgen on the highway. (BTW: I don't consider gridlock on an interstate to be "highway driving".) But, when I take trips that are 75%+ true highway driving at an average of 75 mph, I get about 24-26 mpg. I could get even better if I slow down a little because the "sweet spot" for mpg seems to be at about 65 mph. This is about the speed that it remains in 6th gear most of the time. It does not downshift as much to get up hills at 65. Knowing myself as much as I do, slowing down is not an option.
I will keep track of mpg on this holiday weekend because I am heading on a 600 mile round trip journey to see the family. I expect it will do what is usually does.
I can compare this to the sedan that is parked in the garage next to it. It is 6 years older and gets about 30 mpg on the highway. So, I could save some gas by cramming the whole family (wife and 3 kids ages 8-2) in this midsize car (true midsize, not 07 Accord mid-sized) and listen to them fight for 5 hours. Or, I can spend some more $ on gas and have them watch movies or play video games and be separated the whole time while my wife is in the back with them keeping order.
Outlook: 25 mpg => 24 gallons of gas used Sedan: 30 mpg => 20 gallons of gas used with gas at $4 a gallon => $16 difference
I am being told over and over again that the destination/transportation/bank fee (called all these names at different places) of 595 is not included in the s-plan invoice but extra. Do you know if this is true? I am in NYC.
I assume that you may have a product price sheet given to you by your HR department of whatever company you work for that shows what the s-plan price is for ever vehicle and every option/accessories that you can build into the vehicle.
On the bottom of that sheet, you will see "does not include $635 destination charge"
If you ask to see the s-plan price, printed on a specific dealer invoice, you will see that the s-plan DOES have the included. Everyone pays the destination charge and regional assessment (New York Assessment in your case). Bank fees are only applied if you lease or finance through a bank that requires one. Mazda American Credit does not have a bank fee.
Basically, s-plan is dealer invoice for the vehicle
Me too. If not for platform sharing, this discussion would not exist. Mercury, Lincoln, Acura, Lexus, Infiniti, Kia, Pontiac, GMC, and Buick, probably wouldn't either. All of these companies share platforms with parent companies (Mercury and Lincoln with Ford, Acura with Honda, Lexus with Toyota, Infiniti with Nissan, Kia with Hyundai, Pontiac, GMC, and Buick with Chevrolet).
There's a right way to do platform sharing (Ford and Mazda do it well, I feel) and a wrong way (Cobalt and G5 from Pontiac - they're practically identical, which is a bad thing).
there is NOTHING flawed about Buick's consumer reliability ratings
Yes there is. How can you say there is not? Buicks are mechanically identical to their counterparts at GMC/Pontiac/Chevy which consistently rate lower, and somehow, Buick rates higher? Why is that? It is because of the people that drive them. You have 75 year old women driving Buick's (Not necessarily the Enclave) vs a 35-50yr old men driving Chevy's/Pontiac's/GMC's. The latter of the two groups statistically drive more, drive their vehicles harder and tend to abuse their vehicles more, where as the first group (Buick drivers) statistically do not drive that much, do not abuse their vehicles either. So, this is how statistically Buicks rate out better then the rest of the GM lineup that are mechanically IDENTICAL to them. How else can you explain it??
I'm sure it's a distant relative of the Equinox, but it sure doesn't feel the same.
The Equinox and Torrent are similar, IMHO, but not the Vue.
Yes, the Equinox and Torrent are shameless in their likeness. Is the Vue related to them? I really don't know. They have long wheelbases; the Vue seems smaller, too small to cost as much as an Acura RD-X.
I really think it's just one person that thinks platform sharing is a bad idea (val). Really, how important is a platform? It's just the lowest basis for designing vehicles from that point up, which saves some time and money, I guess. It's the components that are built on the chassis and platform that are of true importance. Aren't they??
I believe the previous generation Vue was what the nox' and Torrent were based off off. They didn't share engines, but, I believe they both had the same Asin tranny?
Can we assume that the next 'nox and Torrent will be based off of the new Vue?
The last generation Vue Redline used the Honda J35 engine.
The new one now uses the 3.6l VVT engine from the Lambdas.
While the Vue is heavy for its class, it's much lighter than the Lambdas so the engine really feels alive. NVH control is also good, as is wind noise. Tire noise was a bit high but the tires may have been over-inflated for delivery.
Complaints? I like the leather/suede on the seats but the bottom cushion is way too short, and while they did beef up the steering effort, it still doesn't communicate much from the pavement. The Redline is the sportiest model so I felt it should.
This was just a test drive, so we couldn't really push it much, but it rode well despite a firmed up suspension. It no longer felt like an economy crossover, basically.
I spotted a few minor fit/finish issues and visibility could be better.
This will replace a 2002 Subaru Legacy. That car has a manual trans and the wife sits in beltway traffic a lot so she wants an automatic this time.
She has her eye on a small crossover. This is our snow car so AWD is a must.
Price and fuel economy didn't really meet her targets with the Vue Redline. I think I liked it more than she did, basically. I just want to show her what's out there.
No real hurry, the Subaru is perfectly fine. I think she's like to sit up a bit higher, but still keep the overall package small, efficient, and affordable even loaded up.
We are both anxiously awaiting the new 2009 Subaru Forester. She saw a sketch of what it's supposed to look like (it was blogged here on Edmunds) and she loved it.
Well, if efficient and higher-up is the key, she ought to look at the 4-cyl offerings out there. CR-V and RAV4 are both very efficient considering the space they offer. Are they hot-rods? Nah, but they shouldn't feel a lot different from the 2.5L 165hp Subie. The automatic will make anything feel slower though!
I really like the CR-V; it has interior quality that seems a lot better than the new for 2008 Accord. The RAV4 felt cheaper, but wasn't a terrible package.
I haven't seen drawings of the new Forester, and while it isn't a large Crossover, it is still a Crossover SUV. Can we still talk about it here, host?
I hate the rear gate on the RAV4, notice it opens the wrong way, blocking curb side loading? That would annoy her every time she goes grocery shopping or visits Costco.
The way the Highlander is designed just makes more sense. A lift gate takes up less space and provides shelter from rain.
I considered a 5+2 Tribeca this spring but ruled it out for its smallish size, but they make a 5 seater so that might creep back on to the list.
So we'll probably sample a few compacts and a few mid-sizers as well. Then again, the lines have blurred anyway - the RAV4, Outlander, and Santa Fe all offer a 3rd row (albeit tiny ones).
I think you have to look more close to CR-V, it's ugly car (exterior)even compare with previous model. Go to VW passat wagon 4 motion. It lot car for the money. If you driving this car, it's almost M-benz. By the way cargo space will more then in most mini-SUV's. I fit 42' TV in the box .
hey thegraduate what's best platform for CUV? I'm joking. Really, do you think CX-9 much better then GM's CUV. Can you feel difference driving on highway or in traffic. I’m not when I test drove them. The only difference inside.
I think you have to look more close to CR-V, it's ugly car (exterior)even compare with previous model.
Styling is subjective, so arguing it is moot. The CR-V's sales (the highest of all crossovers) speak for themselves though. People like it.
Go to VW passat wagon 4 motion. It lot car for the money. If you driving this car, it's almost M-benz. By the way cargo space will more then in most mini-SUV's. I fit 42' TV in the box .
The Passat 4Motion, according to VW.com, STARTS around $40k. For that kind of money, one can buy a loaded model of any of the 7/8 Passenger SUVs here, heck, you can get into an Acura MDX for around that as well. And, like you said yourself, you like the high seating position a CUV offers.
The Passat is just a station wagon, with no height advantage. Sure, it has luxury toys, but for a forty-thousand dollar station wagon, it OUGHT to. VW makes a poor value equation for people because it doesn't come with a luxury nameplate but comes at a luxury price, and is nowhere close in competition for the CR-V (which starts at almost less than half the price of the VW). They don't compete with each other when one costs about twice as much as another.
By the way, the $21k CR-V matches the Passat for cargo room with the rear seats up, and offers over 11 cu. ft. more when you fold the seats of both vehicles down.
Comments
The person that just bought an Enclave made a great choice.
Do you have a citation??
In future they will produce minivan on same platform.
Um GM got out of the minivan business because they couldn't compete and the Acadia/Outlook/Enclave are the replacements. I don't see GM getting back into minivans.
I have to disagree. The new Highlander is very much like the old one- to the point that this is where they dropped the ball. Toyota didn't improve it nearly enough. It falls short.
I looked (drove couple times)GM, Highlander, CX-9, Commander, Veracruz, Pilot, Taurus X. I have never buy with extras option, I think it waist of money. You'll never get your money back. The Acadia was better, then everything else, more space, like a ride, quite in side, Onstar good system, fuel good for this size, good engine. Conn : wish interior (dash) was made it better,
The original definition of a crossover is an SUV body on a CAR platform. The lambdas are the first CUV that have platforms which were developed specifically for a CUV. There is nothing wrong with a CUV being based off a car.
The original Acura MDX was one of the first CUVs, and has still yet to be surpassed by some CUVs like the Ford Edge, and Nissan Murano (which is also nice), and the Volvo XC90. I'd say before the Lambdas and the CX-9, the First MDX- which is CAR BASED was the best CUV on the road.
And about driving experience, most people buy CUVs because they want something that looks like an SUV but drives like a CAR. So it can be good to be based off a car, because that is what they are going for.
Why is the car-based CUV idea inferior to the Lambdas. We know why you chose it, but in what ways is the Lambda platform better than other car-based platforms? You talked so much about how superior the GM triplets were because they were on a platform that was yet to be shared with other vehicles/cars. I'm not seeing any facts (or opinions) for that matter to let me know you know what you are talking about as far as the platform is concerned.
First, this is not a Toyota Camry discussion, so that is why you don't see that here. Plus, Toyota as a company have have above average reliability for many many years, and have a proven track record. GM does not, but, have made strides in the right direction.
The Enclave is an all around good CUV
I never said it wasn't.
And about driving experience, most people buy CUVs because they want something that looks like an SUV but drives like a CAR
BIngo!
I guess vlad just does not get it...
Wrong from 15 to 26 dependence of AWD or FWD.
It dependence how you driving, speed, how you take off from traffic light abd of course AWD will consume more . I got on FWD mix city and highway about 22-24. Do you have numbers for other car for compare. If not don't post. Toyota forum: from 15 to 22 for AWD.
There's nothing inferior about it, platforms are designed to be multi-functional these days, and it's a non-issue with customers (except for one, apparently!)
And, ironically enough, if you read the forums you'll find the Lambdas spend a lot more time in the shop than, say, the Mazda CX-9 (based on 2007 data from truedelta). So dedicated platform does not mean better reliability.
If you think about it, a platform has nothing to do with reliability.
I hope you won't get offended when I say that I don't believe a single word of that.
The 2008 EPA numbers for the FWD Acadia are 16 City and 24 Hwy. So in a MIX of driving (which people would assume is about 50/50 city/hwy) you get up to 24 mpg???
That contradicts what I read on the Acadia forums -- people seem to get at best 24 mpg on highway only (calculating using pen and paper, not the DIC), and averaging about 19-20 in a mix of city and hwy. There are many who get worse than that.
I don't know about time, but all cars have recalls, even most reliable Camry, which drop below average. I don't believe in the reports from Consumer Report, because they called 98' Explorer as avoid used car back there, I bought when mileage was 26,000 in 00 and sold when it was 120k in 05. I had two times in shop for recalled. That's it. I changed brakes pads, oil and tires.
Well the thread has turned into how much better of a ride and handling the Lambdas are because they have a dedicated platform (when we all know that stiffness, suspension, tires, etc. affect all that, no matter what platform you have). So why not throw in reliability while we're at it!!! Maybe the dedicated platform is flawed and that is why Acadia owners have had issues with transmission software, door leaks, batteries dying, driveline bolts coming loose, etc. etc!
I'm being just a bit sarcastic, by the way. Probably time for me to stop responding to the thread...
EPA is only for advertising .I can't complain, my old car Acura 3.2TL did about 23-25 on highway and about 18-19 in traffic.
I saw your carspace page and a previous post from you. I am in the market for an s-plan Mazda 3 4 door i touring. I am being told over and over again that the destination/transportation/bank fee (called all these names at different places) of 595 is not included in the s-plan invoice but extra. Do you know if this is true? I am in NYC.
Thanks a lot.
It also won many accolades too!
And whose track record has badly been battered in the last two years. Call it however you want- there is NOTHING flawed about Buick's consumer reliabiltiy ratings.
It also won many accolades too!
Actually debuted before, but that's more of a Luxury CUV, while the MDX wasn't as much luxury in my oppinion. Plus- the RX has no whee near as much room. The MDX was a nice spacious family CUV.
I will keep track of mpg on this holiday weekend because I am heading on a 600 mile round trip journey to see the family. I expect it will do what is usually does.
I can compare this to the sedan that is parked in the garage next to it. It is 6 years older and gets about 30 mpg on the highway. So, I could save some gas by cramming the whole family (wife and 3 kids ages 8-2) in this midsize car (true midsize, not 07 Accord mid-sized) and listen to them fight for 5 hours. Or, I can spend some more $ on gas and have them watch movies or play video games and be separated the whole time while my wife is in the back with them keeping order.
Outlook: 25 mpg => 24 gallons of gas used
Sedan: 30 mpg => 20 gallons of gas used
with gas at $4 a gallon => $16 difference
Money well spent by preserving my sanity.
Where is the Accord in that? :confuse:
Two vehicles sharing a platform doesn't quite mean they share the same chassis, as is made quite evident from that photo.
I assume that you may have a product price sheet given to you by your HR department of whatever company you work for that shows what the s-plan price is for ever vehicle and every option/accessories that you can build into the vehicle.
On the bottom of that sheet, you will see "does not include $635 destination charge"
If you ask to see the s-plan price, printed on a specific dealer invoice, you will see that the s-plan DOES have the included. Everyone pays the destination charge and regional assessment (New York Assessment in your case). Bank fees are only applied if you lease or finance through a bank that requires one. Mazda American Credit does not have a bank fee.
Basically, s-plan is dealer invoice for the vehicle
There's a right way to do platform sharing (Ford and Mazda do it well, I feel) and a wrong way (Cobalt and G5 from Pontiac - they're practically identical, which is a bad thing).
Yes there is. How can you say there is not? Buicks are mechanically identical to their counterparts at GMC/Pontiac/Chevy which consistently rate lower, and somehow, Buick rates higher? Why is that? It is because of the people that drive them. You have 75 year old women driving Buick's (Not necessarily the Enclave) vs a 35-50yr old men driving Chevy's/Pontiac's/GMC's. The latter of the two groups statistically drive more, drive their vehicles harder and tend to abuse their vehicles more, where as the first group (Buick drivers) statistically do not drive that much, do not abuse their vehicles either. So, this is how statistically Buicks rate out better then the rest of the GM lineup that are mechanically IDENTICAL to them. How else can you explain it??
I test drove a Saturn Vue yesterday, top-of-the-line Redline model, 3.6l VVT, loaded up, $32k+ sticker.
I'm sure it's a distant relative of the Equinox, but it sure doesn't feel the same.
The Equinox and Torrent are similar, IMHO, but not the Vue.
The Equinox and Torrent are similar, IMHO, but not the Vue.
Yes, the Equinox and Torrent are shameless in their likeness. Is the Vue related to them? I really don't know. They have long wheelbases; the Vue seems smaller, too small to cost as much as an Acura RD-X.
It'd be like saying you won't by a house because the insulation is pink instead of white. It does the same thing.
I believe the previous generation Vue was what the nox' and Torrent were based off off. They didn't share engines, but, I believe they both had the same Asin tranny?
Can we assume that the next 'nox and Torrent will be based off of the new Vue?
I tried to find a similar photo of an Accord, but remember, there is no frame to show!
Anyone here a pro at GM's platform names? I know they have the Lambdas, the Epsilons, what are the Vue/Equinox/Torrent called?
I invite anyone who is familiar with the Equinox to drive a Vue Redline.
They feel completely different.
Equinox to drive a Vue Redline.
The Vue Redline had a Honda drivetrain, right? Does Saturn have a Vue Redline for the new body style? I'm too lazy to look it up!
The new one now uses the 3.6l VVT engine from the Lambdas.
While the Vue is heavy for its class, it's much lighter than the Lambdas so the engine really feels alive. NVH control is also good, as is wind noise. Tire noise was a bit high but the tires may have been over-inflated for delivery.
Complaints? I like the leather/suede on the seats but the bottom cushion is way too short, and while they did beef up the steering effort, it still doesn't communicate much from the pavement. The Redline is the sportiest model so I felt it should.
This was just a test drive, so we couldn't really push it much, but it rode well despite a firmed up suspension. It no longer felt like an economy crossover, basically.
I spotted a few minor fit/finish issues and visibility could be better.
We're still shopping, basically.
She has her eye on a small crossover. This is our snow car so AWD is a must.
Price and fuel economy didn't really meet her targets with the Vue Redline. I think I liked it more than she did, basically. I just want to show her what's out there.
No real hurry, the Subaru is perfectly fine. I think she's like to sit up a bit higher, but still keep the overall package small, efficient, and affordable even loaded up.
We are both anxiously awaiting the new 2009 Subaru Forester. She saw a sketch of what it's supposed to look like (it was blogged here on Edmunds) and she loved it.
I really like the CR-V; it has interior quality that seems a lot better than the new for 2008 Accord. The RAV4 felt cheaper, but wasn't a terrible package.
I haven't seen drawings of the new Forester, and while it isn't a large Crossover, it is still a Crossover SUV. Can we still talk about it here, host?
I hate the rear gate on the RAV4, notice it opens the wrong way, blocking curb side loading? That would annoy her every time she goes grocery shopping or visits Costco.
The way the Highlander is designed just makes more sense. A lift gate takes up less space and provides shelter from rain.
I considered a 5+2 Tribeca this spring but ruled it out for its smallish size, but they make a 5 seater so that might creep back on to the list.
So we'll probably sample a few compacts and a few mid-sizers as well. Then again, the lines have blurred anyway - the RAV4, Outlander, and Santa Fe all offer a 3rd row (albeit tiny ones).
Go to VW passat wagon 4 motion. It lot car for the money. If you driving this car, it's almost M-benz. By the way cargo space will more then in most mini-SUV's.
I fit 42' TV in the box .
I think we want something with a little more ground clearance and an elevated seating position, too.
Space is not a big issue - we have the other vehicle for that. She'd actually prefer something smaller and easier to park.
Touareg is too high in price when well equipped but when do the Tiguans arrive in dealerships?
I added the Forester to the list.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Doesn't really matter, they're out of our price range.
My friend owns a V8 model and it's uber-nice inside but he paid a small fortune for it. The NAV system isn't really user-friendly, either.
what's best platform for CUV? I'm joking.
Really, do you think CX-9 much better then GM's CUV. Can you feel difference driving on highway or in traffic. I’m not when I test drove them. The only difference inside.
Styling is subjective, so arguing it is moot. The CR-V's sales (the highest of all crossovers) speak for themselves though. People like it.
Go to VW passat wagon 4 motion. It lot car for the money. If you driving this car, it's almost M-benz. By the way cargo space will more then in most mini-SUV's.
I fit 42' TV in the box .
The Passat 4Motion, according to VW.com, STARTS around $40k. For that kind of money, one can buy a loaded model of any of the 7/8 Passenger SUVs here, heck, you can get into an Acura MDX for around that as well. And, like you said yourself, you like the high seating position a CUV offers.
The Passat is just a station wagon, with no height advantage. Sure, it has luxury toys, but for a forty-thousand dollar station wagon, it OUGHT to. VW makes a poor value equation for people because it doesn't come with a luxury nameplate but comes at a luxury price, and is nowhere close in competition for the CR-V (which starts at almost less than half the price of the VW). They don't compete with each other when one costs about twice as much as another.
By the way, the $21k CR-V matches the Passat for cargo room with the rear seats up, and offers over 11 cu. ft. more when you fold the seats of both vehicles down.