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
The Highlander does have stability control, though it is not called RSC.
Has he/you looked at the GMC Acadia? The Acadia would improve gas mileage, without losing as much interior space from the Suburban.
It has stability control, but, not roll stability control in addition to it. Roll stability control utilizes gyroscopes in the wheels, and eliminates the chance, well, to roll over! Highlander does not have this safety feature. The CX-9 has both electronic stability control and roll stability control.
Most likely it is Volvo's RSC as found in Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, and Land Rovers currently. This was the first of its kind IIRC and has garnered much praise from what I've read about it. Others have copied it since (or possibly bought it from Ford) but I don't know how effective they are.
Good catch with adding Mitsu as well.
BMW's blue/white logo is meant to symbolize a propellor.
Some BMW motorcycles also use boxer engines, like Subaru (and Porsche).
Funny thing is Porsche's crossover doesn't use a boxer, instead using VW-based V6 and V8 engines.
Anyone hear about this one??? just saw it on another forum I read and was curious if anyone here has any issue like this...
Well, most if not all stability control systems utilize ABS and power management to keep the vehicles on the road. The big difference in the Volvo/Ford/Mazda/LR system is that it utilizes a gyroscopic sensor along with all the other steering, speed, wheel position, etc. sensors. That one special sensor enables the computer within to detect/predict a rollover and take the appropriate action to TRY (want to be very clear on that) to prevent a rollover.
FWIW Volvo strapped live people in XC90s to demo the system a few years back. The drivers got up to speed and made emergency manuevers which would have rolled pretty much any SUV (hard left/right then turn hard the other way real fast). No roll. There was a video of it and the wheels barely left the ground during the second turn. It was pretty impressive.
I have just about made the decision to buy an Enclave. But I need some help understanding the options and which ones are for me. In particular, I haven't kept up very well with the developing technology. For example, I haven't ever used a navigation system of any kind.
So, my questions are: do I need both the rear assist and the rear camera? What is the purpose of each, how do they work, when will I use them? Both the driver confidence and luxury package? What are the best elements of each and why do some people get both? Do I need the Navigation if I can use On-Star? I"ve followed some of the discussion about FWD vs. AWD, but still not sure. I live in Maryland and don't do much mountain driving and I try to avoid driving in snow, but sometimes it is unavoidable. Rain, of course, is also unavoidable at times. There aren't very many Enclaves around here, so I've only test driven the FWD.
Anyway, all your advice will be much appreciated as I am quite a novice about buying cars. Thanks.
i think it looks like a d*ldo.
gross.
sorry, mazda fans......
In Maryland, you could get by fine with FWD and have better performance and pickup, but in MD you do get some snow.
But it does have a big nose.
AWD doesn't do anything to help you STOP in slick conditions. I think a lot of people overlook that. If you've gotten by with RWD or FWD before, a Buick FWD with Stability Control (Isn't it called Stabilitrak?) should suit you just fine.
Ken
The rear camera is a good idea, since rear visibility isn't the best in the Enclave when you are backing up, but you need the NAV for it. The rear assist is probably the best compromise, you won't see a picture but at least the lights will give you an indication when you close to an object.
If you travel a lot, the NAV can be useful, but for the most part it'll likely go unused. You can buy a portable unit for 1/5 of the price. OnStar is good while free, but the monthly fees add up after the first year, especially if you want to use the navigation capabilities (you have to get yourself a Verizon cell phone).
You don't need AWD in Maryland. FWD with stability control is fine.
Also check out enclaveforum.net for more discussions (similar to the Acadia forum, but for Enclaves!)
Make you you get a recent 2008 model. Previous models need a transmission software update, and have some other minor "quirks" that are being addressed.
I was flipping through the Motor Trend magazine in my dentist office and stumbbled on the SUV of the year article. I was really surpise that Mazda CX-9 won. So I did lots of research on the web. My wife and I then went and test drove a few SUVs, including the Highlander and CX-9. We conclude that MT is right. CX-9 is a great car. CX-9 is roomier than the Highlander and has comparable mileage. Comparing the designs, the CX-9 makes the Highlander look like a 5 year old car.
We just got my brand new 2008 CX-9 last night. Love it, Love it, Love it! We got the basic Sport AWD with moonroof and back up mirror. MSRP is almost $35k, but I got an incredible deal. I can't tell you how little I paid. But let me just say it is under
invoice for sure. (You read right: under invoice price! NOT MSRP)
And I also got 0% finance!
My secret: I have a good friend who works at an internet sales/fleet manager in Menlo Park Mazda. He is a great honest guy and Mazda is having a fire sale. So usually at the end of the year, he can do a lot of magic to get the car and price you want. Anyway, if you are looking for a Mazda (be it a CX-9 or anything else) in San Francisco Bay Area, now you know where to go!
Happy Holidays and Happy Shopping!!!
I agree with it. It's better than Highlander, but not MDX or Acadia. It's total out range statement that CX-9 better MDX or Acadia. I can agree with the price range between MDX and CX-9.But if you’re comparing the same options, price, and driving experience it's all up to customers who are buying these cars. There are having absolutely different driving an experiences. The some people likes jugging, called sporty, style (CX-9), some likes quite, less feeling, called luxury, driving experience.
I’m still disagree with TM, because if you drove these cars like they’re in the forest, off-road, I will agree CX-9 has most stiff driving experience.
Congrat with the car.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but it seems like you feel that someone saying the CX-9 is better than the Acadia, is outrageous. That in itself is outrageous.
sorry, "boxcar" fans...
The Acadia is a fine vehicle, there are no lows, but there are no highs. It accelerates okay. It handles okay. It's interior quality is okay (it does have its share of hard cheap plastics, but all these CUVs do). It is a vast improvement over the typical GM slop that's been produced over the last 10 years, that's for sure.
The Acadia is more expensive than the CX-9 when equipped similarly, so that's one strike. The Acadia has also had tons of issues-door leaks, batteries dying, seats that rock back and forth, transmission, etc. etc. That's another strike (the CX-9 seems to have far less issues, and less time in the shop--check truedelta.com). The only reason why it doesn't have a third strike is the fact that it is a competent vehicle, and holds its own against the Highlander, Pilot, CX-9, etc.
I'm still considering the Acadia, but didn't find it as quick and nimble as the Highlander, Veracruz, or CX-9. The only reason I'd consider it is for the extra roominess. If it had more HP or a V-8 in 2009, I'd probably jump on it...
Any examples, please?
Plastics quality, power-to-weight, handling, for starters.
Acadia start $29,990, where CX-9 $30,035, Full loaded GM-41,371 and Mazda 40, 152 that only 1,000 more, but Mazda doesn't have head up display option.
The Acadia has also had tons of issues-door leaks, batteries dying, seats that rock back and forth, transmission, etc. etc.
I don't have any of these issues. I'm not sure why someone have it. I don't have any issues with this car at all. I have done transmission update, but I don't feel difference after update. The trans. worked perfect before update, but dealer told me it will better fuel economy. OK?!
Acadia start $29,990, where CX-9 $30,035, Full loaded GM-41,371 and Mazda 40, 152 that only 1,000 more, but Mazda doesn't have head up display option.
The Acadia has also had tons of issues-door leaks, batteries dying, seats that rock back and forth, transmission, etc. etc.
I don't have any of these issues. I'm not sure why someone have it. I don't have any issues with this car at all. I have done transmission update, but I don't feel difference after update. The trans. worked perfect before update, but dealer told me it will better fuel economy. OK?!
I'm still considering the Acadia, but didn't find it as quick and nimble as the Highlander, Veracruz, or CX-9.
By the CX-9 faster on 1/4 mile, but it's just less than .1 sec. do you feel it? Is it Formula 1?
Acadia start $29,990, where CX-9 $30,035, Full loaded GM-41,371 and Mazda 40, 152 that only 1,000 more, but Mazda doesn't have head up display option.
The Acadia has also had tons of issues-door leaks, batteries dying, seats that rock back and forth, transmission, etc. etc.
I don't have any of these issues. I'm not sure why someone have it. I don't have any issues with this car at all. I have done transmission update, but I don't feel difference after update. The trans. worked perfect before update, but dealer told me it will better fuel economy. OK?!
I'm still considering the Acadia, but didn't find it as quick and nimble as the Highlander, Veracruz, or CX-9.
By the CX-9 faster on 1/4 mile, but it's just less than .1 sec. do you feel it? Is it Formula 1?
Most definitely yes. It first appeared in a Volvo but has trickled down to vehcles for "the common man" since then.
For example, the Ford and the Mazda both have 6 speed automatic transmissions so if I didn't know better I would think they are using the same transmission, but in fact the Mazda uses a Japanese built Aisin model.
Actually Ford was using Aisin and Jatco 5 and 6 speed trannies before they co-developed the current unit with GM. '07 was the first year they used the new 6-speed and it is now used in almost all their SUVs and CUVs. The 6-speed tranny in the Fusion and some other cars is still the Aisin or Jatco unit though IIRC.
Mazda sticking with the Aisin tranny is probaly a location of assembly issue. Most Mazdas are still built in Japan so it probably makes more sense for them to use a tranny sourced from that country. The new Ford 6-speed is only made in the U.S. AFAIK. Kind of like how the engine block for the CX-9 is built here but the rest is tacked on in Japan after the block arrives there. Much more efficient and cost effective.
It would appear that, statistically, Acadia owners will end up in the repair shop more often than the CX-9 owners. Check out the 2007 results on Truedelta.com, and compare that to the CX-9, for example. That's why I'm waiting a few more months to let GM fix most of the major problems. Of course by then, the new Honda Pilot might be released and I may change my mind again!
I've been lurking for a while and I thought I would join in the fun. I just bought my 08 CX-9 Touring a few days ago. Thanks to everyone for all the advice/comments posted as it has been valuable in making my decision. I'll put the pricing and specs on the appropriate pricing forum.
The lease was up on my 04 Pilot and I did not want purchase it knowing the 09 would be redone (I was hoping on an 08 remodel). The pilot was great and met most of my needs at the time. But with the addition of another child (#2), more space was needed as well as new technology. I'm sure the 09 Pilot will be great (esp with the adv of seeing the competition), but I could not wait that long. So we decided to see what was out there and this lead me to narrowing my choices to the Highlander, Acadia and CX-9.
The Highlander was average and felt too 'rental-car-ish'. It's hard to describe, but interior felt sterile, steering felt loose and the breaks were soft. I did like the 3" LCD screen for car info and backup camera. The captains chairs were also a hit with the wife and kids.
The Acadia was a nice surprise. Loved the space, the captains chairs and HUD. the ride was also very respectable. It probably fit the needs of our family the best. But, the biggest factor against it was the 'american car reliability' image. Now, before I get slammed, I admit, my bias is unsubstantiated and and only from perception, not experience. My biggest reliability concern was from year 7+ and 100k miles down the road. I tend to keep cars 10-15 years. I'm sure the Acadia would have performed well for the first 5 years, but I did not want to chance larger maintenance issues down the road. It seems even initial problems are lopsided compared to the Toyota or Mazda.
On to the Mazda CX-9. The handling of the car was so much better/sporter than either of the other CUVs. Definite Zoom Zoom! The interior is very nicely done, ergonomic and had a personality. I would have liked captains chairs, but that probably is not possible with the roofline. The space is slightly smaller than the GMC, but it is still miles ahead of the Pilot (esp with the 3rd row down). The backup camera is also very helpful. After only having the car a few days, I'm still learning all the buttons and features. I love the remote start and keyless entry. This is my first nav system, so it works for me - I have nothing to compare it to.
Overall, I'm happy with my purchase. I'll add my 2 cents when appropriate and continue to enjoy this forum.
.
The only Q: How do you know the reliability of the CX-9 will be better down in the road (after 100k)?
Correct me if I'm wrong, the mazda had very poor reliability for all previous years.(car after 100k). Madza was rated by CR as avoid used car. You can't predict reliability for many years ahead. In most cases cars had most problems at begining their production, it will better as a used car.
Thanks for clearing that up. I assumed the same process was in place for the D37 too.
Mazda using the Aisin tranny is not due to location but rather by choice.
I think it's a little of both. Besides, they can CHOOSE to use it because it is made where the vehicle is made, no? :P
I am sure that the yet to be released 2009 Mazda6 will continue to use the Aisin transmissions even though the car will be manufactured in the US.
That's no big shocker seeing that many mfrs use Aisin trannies in U.S. built vehicles which makes the cost of using them easier to swallow. Shipping small amounts of U.S. built GM and Ford trannies overseas is a waste of money OTOH.
Remember though, the Mustang is rumored to get the D37 and a Ford 6-speed tranny in '09 for it's base powertrain. Since it and the 6 are built on the same assembly line at the same time every single day, don't be shocked if the U.S. 6 gets the same powertrain. I'm not saying that will happen, but it makes sense you have to admit.
I did the same thing in the Acadia...and it felt like I was sitting in a livingroom...even in the third row.
The Acadia was also a nicer drive (sorry) and felt more solid and masculine. It was a no-brainer. Oh, and GMC's repair record has been better than Mazda's, fyi.
I disagree with this statement. when you buy a used car, how do you know all the problems have been fixed? even if corrected, that makes it a better car than one which has not needed any maintenance? At what point are the initial flaws worked out of the car - 1 month, 1 year or 5 years? My 91 Integra was sold with 196k miles and no maintenance other than oil, tires and scheduled maint. It still drove as well 15 years later as it did day 1.
Initial reliability shows that engineering and testing were thought out and was built correctly. Sure, parts break over time and need to be replaced, but transmission issues or door seal problems should not be a common issue right away.
Based on what?
As I said before, the maint was a matter of perception. All the people I know who have Big 3 cars/trucks say how much they are in the shop. I've had good luck with non-US cars, so that's where my comfort level is. My Mom has a 04 Mazda - so far her only trouble has been the radio.
Although we've owned 5 Mazda products since 1978, and have put over 100k on all but one, I was also a little concerned about how a "new" model would do in the reliability department when we bought ours last February. So far with almost 10k, our has been trouble free, but time (and miles) will tell...
I knew that, I stated that in my previous post. I just don't know the technical info on how it works. I know what it is and what it does, what the system utilizes, just not how it does it.
Based on what?
J.D. Power's 2007 Dependability Study:
Rank: GMC 19, Mazda 33
J.D. Power's 2007 Initial Quality:
Rank: GMC 18, Mazda 34
I don't really have much of an opinion about GMC or Mazda as far as reliability, I was just curious of your sources, since CR seems to counteract that. The Colorado and Envoy were pretty dismal as far as long-term reliability went, I believe.