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…9293959798…142

Comments

  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    http://www.saturn.com/saturn/vehicles/outlook/pricing.jsp

    Here it shows the Outlook having 19.7 CuFt behind the 3rd row, but maybe the acadia has more?

    http://autos.aol.com/cars-Ford-Freestyle-2006/specs
    http://www.fordenespanol.com/assets/pdf/brochures/07_Freestyle_catLR.pdf

    These show the Freestyle having 20.7 CuFt behind the 3rd row, and also have some good photos of the 3rd row and cargo areas.

    Being so much wider, I'd expect the Acadia to have more space in general, but the TX/FS is pretty good too in these areas.
  • freealfasfreealfas Member Posts: 652
    since you see fit to call another readers driveway occupants boring why don't you share with the class what resides in your driveway so we can do the same???

    or is it albook thinks he has game and therefore can say anything he wants night????
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Maybe in inches, but more comfortably. pretty good logic here :P ignore the objective numbers and go with one persons opinion of comfort!

    Actually, looking at photos of the Acadias 3rd row makes it look uncomfortable because they tried to design it for three across, so if you're only sitting 2 across, then your bottom is right on the seatbelt. At least in the TX, you're not sitting on the seatbelt! Maybe in the Acadia they slide towards the center?
    http://www.saturn.com/saturn/vehicles/outlook/photoGallery.jsp
    see what I mean...

    http://www.fordvehicles.com/crossovers/taurusx/index.asp?section=PHOTO_GALLERY
    Each of the two seats in the TX 3rd row look wider than each of the 3 individual seating positions in the lambda's 3rd row.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    It doesn't have SUV ground clearance, or SUV ride height.

    Good...that way I don't need to climb UP to get inside. That's why it's a CUV, not SUV.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Lots of fun posts here...Bottom line is that the lamdas are the biggest and most SUV/truckish..yeah for the lambdas! A good choice for those downsizing from Suburbans and other big GM vehicles.

    But, there are some folks (like me and some others here) who value more car characteristics in a vehicle that can carry 7 adults comfortable in all 3 rows and don't need the extra bulk of a lamba to do that...so the TX/FS is a good choice, as is the CX-9. The CX-9 is really just a sporty version of the TX/FS.

    I think the lambda folks are just jealous because the FS was out 2 years before the lambda, which is pretty much a copy of the FS design, just a few inches wider. The FS was the first in this category...providing adult seating in all three rows and decent cargo behind the 3rd row in a CUV.

    And I'm still waiting for those calling the FS/TX just another wagon to provide an example of any other wagon that can hold 7 adults plus luggage...just one example... :P
  • larryqwlarryqw Member Posts: 52
    I rode in the Outlook (similar to Acadia) and Taurus X repeatedly one after the other, as I had issues with room for me and my tall family of five. I sat in all three rows of both cars with my 6'1" height and 250 lbs wide. My inseam is 35", so I have the legs of someone more like 6'3". My impression is as follows.

    Front Seat:
    Both are fine on width, but Outlook had a bit more with side room for moving the legs around more as well. The T-X just barely made it for me on leg length. I wish I had another inch, but was able to fit by putting the rear of the seat all the way down and front of the seat all the way up, so my legs were slightly folded. On the Outlook, I had way more length than I needed, and didn't even need to go all the way back. I note the specifications give the Outlook 3.5" more leg room, and I felt it. But I was able to deal with the T-X. Pity anyone with longer legs on the T-X.

    Second Row Seats:
    This is where the Outlook totally failed for me and sent me to the Taurus X. The leg room wasn't as long. But more important, the seats were closer to the ground, so the seat was very uncomfortable for those with long legs, as the thighs weren't supported with the knees up in the air. My tall kids would hate it.

    Third Row Seats:
    The seats were about equal from what I recall. Neither was great but fine for people under 6' and acceptable for those my size. It was actually easier to get in with the Tarurus X folding seat. The sliders on the Outook were sticky and harder to manipulate compared to the T-X simple fold mechanism.

    My decision was to go with the Taurus-X as it had better leg room for all passengers, especially second row, and it was narrower and more manuveable than the Outlook.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Wow...I guess my posts/opinions aren't totally nuts! ;)
  • vad1819vad1819 Member Posts: 309
    From your post if I'm right you're tested both cars with captain seat on second row. I heard that captain seats in GM' s CUV is not really comfy. I bought acadia with bench type, I like more even dealer give away for almost same price these vehicles.
    The seat sliding mechanism works very good after couple time do that. You have to just to know how to move it. The first time I couldn't even move it.
    I can't agree with statement, that third row almost same in both vehicles. In the Acadia more space there for you as adult. It's a leg, hip and shuolder room. Also, third row seat are not for adults in these vehicles, more for kids. But if you put two adult there in Acadia they will feel more comfy than in TX.
    Yet, the Acadia turning diameter is .4 ft more, because of bigger tires. So You can't say TX more manuveable than Outlook. According MT test Acadia performed same as CX_9 for MT figure eight - 28.2 sec, but Acura MDX - 27.4 sec
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    You're still using the size argument to categorize a vehicle.

    Your point is valid but all it means is it's bigger, not categorized differently.

    AWD, ground clearance, and elevated seating, those are better criteria than size. The TX/FX meets some, not all, of those.

    So it's in the gray area, and the reason why this thread gets 100+ posts a day. :D
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    That is a funny story, but....it says nothing at all about the benefits of a GPS.

    Bai Bo, the driver, simply failed to apply common sense.

    The story says "The driver had turned right, as the Global Positioning System advised, and the car somehow got stuck on the tracks at the crossing"

    Let's analyze the headline "GPS Device Blamed" part.

    A GPS doesn't advise people to merely turn right. For example, mine would say "turn right in 300 feet on to Route 27".

    It would also show you a map somewhat like this one:

    image

    BIG difference. The GPS did not say "turn right on to the train tracks in 250 feet".

    This is 100% driver error, he deserves the blame entirely.

    In fact if he had used the GPS properly, the map would have clearly shown the train tracks, and he could easily see that the road was AFTER the tracks.

    Intelligence is required to use a GPS.

    And to drive a car for that matter. He didn't notice he was on TRAIN TRACKS for crying out loud?

    The car "somehow got stuck"? DUH. Try staying on the road.

    100% driver error. Blaming the GPS is senstationalist journalism at its worst.

    Sad.
  • saabturboidsaabturboid Member Posts: 178
    So I'm right! TX is a station wagon!!!

    Really I think though this class encompasses a large variety of vehicles, You can classify which is more station wagon like (and which is the most SUV like). In that sense, I think the TX is the most wagon like.

    Yes the TX is a station wagon, as is the Acadia. In modern terms they are also both CUVs. Using the proper definition of a station wagon one CUV... ummm I mean CUSW can not be more station wagon like than another. Here is the definition of a station wagon from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

    -------
    Main Entry: station wagon
    Function: noun
    Date: 1904
    : an automobile that has a passenger compartment which extends to the back of the vehicle, that has no trunk, that has one or more rear seats which can be folded down to make space for light cargo, and that has a tailgate or liftgate
    -------

    As you can see, all of the vehicles here fit this definition and therefore they are all in the same category. And for those that question the CUV status of the FS/TX because it uses the same platform as the 500/New Generation Taurus, you also may wish to note that this same platform is used for the Volvo XC90 SUV!

    - Chad
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    That's a pretty broad definition of a station wagon. One could argue that a mini-van is also a station wagon, as well as a van and all full size SUVs and hatch backs. Basically any vehicle that isn't a pickup and isn't a sedan would fall into the station wagon category. And the definition goes back to 1904 so it's a bit out of context in 2008.

    I'd argue that due to the TX being lower to the ground and giving a lower seating position it could be argued that it is a station wagon. When I look at it I think station wagon, I don't think, Bronco.

    -mike
  • cjsbcjsb Member Posts: 71
    My $.02 (Canadian currency - worth more! - wink) after comparing many of these vehicles along with a few others. Everything from Acura to Volkswagen and most of what sits between. I even shopped across the border in the States when prices made sense to do so.

    I spent eight months narrowing down my search for a vehicle with a third row that was not a minivan. I don't know what you would call that type of automobile...SUV? CUV? MPV? I only know my wife forbid me from the "minivan". All else was fair game.

    I was comfortable spending $50K but would just as easily been happy spending $30K. I simply wanted value and for the vehicle to meet as many of my criteria as possible. And I had lots. I had tables created that compared everything from ground clearance to insurance rates to torque availability to interior passenger dimensions to mileage to depreciation to safety ratings to sliding middle row distance to warranty coverage to decibles at highway speed to...you get the picture. I like to think I'm thorough. Others have said anal retentive.

    Seven months into my journey I had landed at the Acadia/Outlook or CX9. Both are fantastic IMO. However neither my wife or I could get past the "looks" of the CX9. I realize we are in the minority on this but we really don't like the exterior appearance. The CX7 looks great! But the 9? Not so much.

    So Acadia/Outlook it was. Or so we thought. Something didn't "feel" right to me. There were a few things standing in my way. Like some, I found the second row uncomfortable. And did we really need 202 inches? AWD was a $3K option (in Canada). And without bumping up the price significantly it lacked some of the creature comforts I was after like sterring wheel audio, all leather, dual exhaust - things I realize might mean zilch to others. But they were mildly important to me.

    At any rate, I eventually convinced myself to see past these arguably non-dealbreakers and on the first Saturday in December had half my signature down on a mocha coloured Saturn Outlook.

    And then on that Saturday Hyundai Canada increased its Manufacturer Rebate on the Veracruz to $5500 and a local dealer took another nearly $3000 off the MSRP if I was willing to pay cash. Done.

    The Veracruz had long been the one vehicle that met more of my criteria than any other. And most of what I had dug up in terms of test drives and reviews spoke highly of vehicle. Motortrend Mag. even chose it over the Lexus RX! But before the $8500 price break, it just didn't quite win the "value" equation I had created to finalize my decision.

    One month in and I'm extremely pleased with the choice. I've got my AWD six speed automatic 191 inch long whatever you call it with 8.1 inches of ground clearance, power sunroof, all leather, heated power seats, sliding second row, steering wheel audio controls, top notch safety rated, limousine quiet, best warranty in the business...vehicle with three rows that is not a minivan. Best bang for the buck for this humble car shopper.

    I know I come off sounding like a Hyundai salesman in these last couple paragraphs. Rest assured I'm not. I have zero loyalty to any car company. Maybe better stated as "equal" loyalty.

    I'll end my anecdote by saying most of the vehicles I looked at were excellent. And depending on each person's personal criteria one could make a very strong case for many of them...as has been done in this thread. Hard to go wrong really. And good thing we don't all choose the same whatever you call it. Keeps it interesting.

    Have fun with the search ladies and gentleman! It's a blast. I'll continue to enjoy reading your posts on the subject. Thanks for the great reading!

    Mark
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    But if you put two adult there in Acadia they will feel more comfy than in TX.

    Perhaps in your opinion, but larrygw already stated that the 3rd rows felt about equal to him, and that the TX was easier to enter the 3rd row. Mabye because of the better legroom or higher seating position?

    You can't say TX more manuveable than Outlook.
    Depends on your definition of "maneuverable" It's more than just turning circle and figure 8 test. You also have to do is test drive two vehicles and see which ones feels more maneuverable. When you're driving on the streets with cars around you, in parking lots, getting around tight spaces, etc, a wider vehicle can feel less maneuverable since because of the added bulk, you have less room to maneuver. Plus since the TX is lower to the ground, it feels more car-like in it's handling characteristics. I've seen several posts on how the Acadia is more SUV like and that the TX is more of a station wagon. Well, I'd say most cars handle better and are more maneuverable than an SUV, so if the FS/TX is more car-like and the Acadia more SUV-like, then that would also suggest that the FS/TX handles better and is more maneuverable. Maneuverability is sort of a combination of objective professional tests and subjective road tests.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    If the Freestyle is a wagon, name me one other wagon with three rows of forward facing seating?
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser
    Chevy Caprice Wagon

    I'm sure there are more that have come along through the ages.

    -mike
  • nxs138nxs138 Member Posts: 481
    You guys do get screwed on car prices in Canada, good job finding this deal. My dad was also looking at an Acadia/Outlook (he lives in Ottawa), but the Canadian prices are absolutely ridiculous, so he passed. I don't think they'll sell a lot of Lambdas in Canada, unless they bring on the rebates.

    The Veracruz is a good car. My wife and I still have it high on our list, since it does have nice driveability (a bit of body roll, but then again it's not a sports car), comfortable seats, decent cargo room behind the 3rd row. I only wish it had bluetooth built-in.

    I think the Veracruz got lost in the fray. It initially gathered attention with its Lexus comparisons, but then...nothing. Hyundai really screwed up their marketing, imo. focusing too much on the Lexus comparison and not enough on the other ammenities. Heck, I think I'm on firm ground stating that the Veracruz is better than the new Highlander (more room behind third row, better interior, split 3rd row seat), but I bet you that Highlander shoppers don't cross-shop the Veracruz, simply because they don't even know it exists.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    really...I didn't know they had forward facing 3rd rows. So you're saying that the TX/FS looks more like a Chevy Caprice Wagon or an Acadia? Actually, a Cadillic SRX looks like a big TX/FS.

    http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/Cadill- acSRX/Images/LeftRear2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/Cadillac- SRX/&h=450&w=600&sz=55&hl=en&start=7&um=1&tbnid=fnRKBQGVik--qM:&tbnh=101&tbnw=13- 5&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCadillac%2BSRX%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

    When you think about CUV seat height, you have regular cars (Accord, Camry, etc that all have low seating position, where you fall down into them. Then you have SUVs where you climb up into them. The TX/FS definitely has a higher seating position than an Accord, Malibu, Camry, but not as high as an SUV...hmmmm...the TX is between a car and SUV and it's NOT a CUV??
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Here is a question, how is the seat height compared to a Tarus/Sable? Generally a Station Wagon has an equivalent sedan in the lineup to compliment it and is carlike. Perception is everything and I think a lot of folks percieve the TX as a wagon, not an SUV or CUV due to it's lowered height. Why would you get hung up if it were called a Station Wagon? I drive a Station Wagon myself and have no issue with it at all. I love the looks that muscle car guys give me when my LGT comes blasting around the turns on the road race course!

    And yes, one of our Oldsmobiles and Caprice wagons did have forward facing 3rd row.

    -mike
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Why would you get hung up if it were called a Station Wagon?

    Why would you get hung up if it were called a CUV?

    If you were to do a comparison road test of the TX today, what other vehicles would you compare it to? a Caprice Classic wagon?
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    It doesn't need to be compared, and Ford should be capitalizing on this! They have essentially re-created a niche market! Get out there and start selling until you have the Buick GrandMaster Wagon come out!

    -mike
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Personally, I think there's more to a CUV then simply seat height, but I guess that's only me...and the manufacturer, insurance companies, and most automobile magazines who catagorize the TX/FS as either an SUV or CUV ;)

    But if it's not a CUV, then as a good Host, you should strip out any post that mentions the TX/FS :P
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    This isn't my area, and I have no problem with people comparing them, heck I used to compare the Astro Van w/AWD to the Suburban. Because it had more interior space, rode better, and got through the snow just as well.

    -mike
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The 500/Taurus sedan also had elevated seating. For the Five Hundred the marketing slogan was even "elevating the sedan". Remember?

    It also offers AWD. So it's actually very similar to the FS/TX.

    What's in a name, though? Ford had some very good packaging and crammed a lot of space in there, who cares what you call it?
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    I agree. I have applauded Ford for it's efforts in bringing AWD to the mainstream. As many long time posters on here know, I'm not a Ford fan at all but they have almost made AWD available across the board in their cars and for that I am happy, even if it isn't the best AWD out there.

    Ok, so the 500/Tarus and the TX are essentially the same but with a wagon rear instead of a sedan rear, then by all means it's a station wagon.

    -mike
  • freealfasfreealfas Member Posts: 652
    to all that are of this opinion....

    what is this undying need to pigeon-hole this idea that the FS/T-reX is a station wagon and for some irrational reason isn't a "CUV"? why is this such an offensive premise to some that are intent on attempting to convince the forum world such a pointless point?

    I'd like to think I'm possibly the only one(or at least one of a very few) around here
    that actually owns both a wagon & FS. I'd also argue I might have some insight as to the similarities and differences in capabilities of the 2, most of them being obvious. Noone here can tell me any of the accepted/perceived wagons out there have as high a seating position as the FS/TreX so that argument doesn't hold any water. Now you cling to the fact is has less ground clearance as the only other point to hang hats on. I'd ask why does a CUV have to have 8" clearance as they are intended for no more than light graded off road use in their tune and build quality hence the tadeoffs for the segment..

    The most rational argument here is that they are all wagon's using whatever you are calling logic around here to define them. if you think about it SUV's are nothing more than a wagon body on a truck frame to allow more competent off road use as well as additional space.

    "When I look at it I think station wagon"

    park one next to a wagon and look again it.
  • vad1819vad1819 Member Posts: 309
    I have only problem with TX it's his fuel economy. It's same as SUV/CUV, the vehicles seating higher of the ground. So, why in world you want to spend 30K+ for wagon with so MPG. Does it make any sense?
    Someone mention about Veracruz with better MPG and same cargo and passengers capabilities. About 2 years ago I was thinking to buy TX (FS), but caught under thought I have already VW wagon and two wagons in the house. So I decided to wait for something better design more updated to our era. All wagons and minivans are past.
    I’m happy for persons who have liked their wagons, but it has been said before not everyone like wagons. It’s more for Europe, in America truck type more better selling car.
  • freealfasfreealfas Member Posts: 652
    " Ok, so the 500/Tarus and the TX are essentially the same but with a wagon rear instead of a sedan rear, then by all means it's a station wagon."

    how do you get to the conclusion they are essentially the same short of the platform/drivetrain they share.

    a wagon typically is a sedan with a raised roof line framing the area to the rear bumper resulting in different body stampings from the front doors or rear in some cases or rear doors in others. the biggest hallmark of a wagon lies in the fact that they share platforms AND body stampings forward maintaining the look of the sedan it is based on. Wagons are not stand alone models they are historically aderivitive of a sedan requiring minor modifications to produce from a B pillar rear. Tell me what stampings are common between the two and you could then possibly have an argument that one is the wagon of the other.

    platform sharing isn't going away but that just because one is common to two lines of vehicles doesn't mean one is the wagon version of the other.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    SUV's are nothing more than a wagon body on a truck frame to allow more competent off road use as well as additional space.

    And if you ask the pickup fellas out there, they'll say an SUV is nothing more than a Pickup with a cap on it and an extra set of seats bolted in the bed!

    If the TX has no more ground clearance or higher seats than the 500/Tarus, how could you call it an CUV? Would the Tarus/500 then be considered a CSV (Crossover Sedan Vehicle)?

    -mike
  • freealfasfreealfas Member Posts: 652
    "I have only problem with TX it's his fuel economy"

    as much as 31mpg out on the highway is really why we bought ours and the ability to carry seven safely. It's plenty updated and 2.5 years into owning there have been no downsides.

    "in America truck type more better selling car"

    that's the problem...
  • freealfasfreealfas Member Posts: 652
    what is this obsession with ground clearance defining a segment of vehicles. the point of a CUV is space and ON ROAD ride/performance. As we all know 90%(exaggerating I know) of SUV's never go off road so why not have the seating position and the space without the compromise of off road setup.

    for the last time IT HAS HIGHER SEATING than a wagon. I know I have both...

    not trying to be difficult, but it really doesn't sound like you have even sat in one to know the difference. I might be wrong of course. I sit in mine and look out over traffic, i.e. a hallmark of an SUV/CUV accepted by most.

    "Would the Tarus/500 then be considered a CSV (Crossover Sedan Vehicle)?"

    It's a sedan with a higher seating position, quite simply...why is this soooo hard?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    FWIW, I think it's both, a wagon and a CUV.

    Any how, I think folks like paisan stick to the traditional name and simply do not accept the marketing hype.

    What is a PT Cruiser? That wouldn't be a wagon by your strict terms either. There's no PT sedan. Yet it is a wagon. Chrysler gets it to qualify as an MPV because the seats fold, but we all know it's a wagon.

    As far as clearance goes, 8" is about par for this class, so Ford came in a little low in that regard, plus it's not as tall (or at least tall looking) as some others, hence all the controversy.

    I bet we see at least another 100 posts and this goes unresolved. :D
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Hey freealfas...give it up. Just because a few folks here in this forum call it a wagon doesn't change the fact that's a CUV. But trying to convince them is like me trying to pottytrain my 2 month old baby...it just ain't happening! Have a good weekend.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    The Pilot EX-L with DVD comes with fog lights, which you said in a previous post was not so.

    Correct. I must have had some columns mixed up when comparing the two and got one wrong for each. So what? At least I looked them up! If we were going by what you say all the time we'd all think the Pilot comes with reverses sensors, a rear view camera, two power seats, a popcorn maker, driver's side toilet system, 46" plasma HD-DVD entertainment system (which doesn't block the rear view mind you), and much, much more! :P

    Also, you said the TX limited came standard with backup camera. It does not, but comes with backup sensors, like the Pilot. So you are either misinformed, or have decided to lie and leave some features out.


    No, that is completely wrong. First, I never said that the TX comes standard with a backup camera. What I did say was that one is not available on either the TX or Pilot which is true. Second, no Pilot trim comes standard with backup sensors and they are a $696, before installation costs, dealer installed accessory. Completely idiotic on Honda's part given the size of the Pilot IMO.

    I wouldn't call having all the controls on the unit a feature. Even so, beside that you haven't given me one function the TX's system can carry out in which the Pilot's can't. You have to deal with the fact that the answer you gave me was your personal oppinion- nothing more.

    That's interesting. What then would you call it? Is the 9" screen on the Pilot's system a feature or not? :confuse:

    Can you control the Honda DVD system from the radio head unit? I can't find any info on it but I do know the Ford systm was praised for it's ease of use and integration into the head unit when it was reviewed in the Explorer for '06 by Edmunds and C&D. Then there's still the fact that all the controls are on the Ford unit whereas the Honda unit has only the essentials. That IS a function Ford has that Honda does not have and is not my opinion. It's a fact.

    Don't even try to say having the inputs on the roof is a convinience. this way, you can trip over them or pull them out. With them on the floor, they aren't hanging from the ceiling, but are flat on the floor. So, if it is true that Honda has inputs on the floor, they definitely win for convienience and ergonomics, and Ford has some catching up to do.

    Oh, I'm not trying to tell you that, I AM telling you that. IMO having the wires up and out of the way of little feet is much safer and convenient than having them on the floor where there is no light and the wires are usually black. Also, I'm not sure how the Pilot seats lock to the floor but the Ford seats lock with a mechanism similar to that on a trunk or a hatch. Kind of a claw and a Pin. If a wire somehow makes its way to one of those when you bring the seat down, bye bye wire.

    Now a headphone jack near the floor would be nice (it's up high on the Ford) and tripping on that probably wouldn't be as much of an issue as the headphones are light and the wire usually pulls out very easily. A/V wires are much tighter and don't give as easily.

    Again, all of this is my opinion of course and you've stated yours. Please stop telling us that Honda wins this and Honda wins that because if a Honda were the best for us I'd be driving one. Obviously I'm not and for good reason. :shades:
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    If the TX has no more ground clearance or higher seats than the 500/Tarus, how could you call it an CUV? Would the Tarus/500 then be considered a CSV (Crossover Sedan Vehicle)?

    Sure. I know you were being sarcastic, but Motor Trend seems to feel the same way about the Taurus.

    In fact, some accuse the new Taurus of being an SUV: It drives heavy, has upright seating, and where else can you get a roof-mounted DVD for rear passengers? - from Motor Trend's Car of the Year Article
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    So I'm driving to the post office an hour ago on the four lane, and this good size vehicle all bright and shiny eases along past me. I try to spot the badge and I see that is says CIVIC in big chrome letters against the reddish-maroon color above the liftgate.

    Now, I don't get out much, but I saw a new CR-V last month and while this CIVIC was chromey, the CR-V it had more chrome on it than this rig. But why would it not say Pilot if it was a Honda?

    So I close the gap a bit and the light changes and the logo actually says GMC. Ah, it's an Acadia - first of of those I've seen (like I said, I don't get out much).

    It looked pretty SUVish to me - certainly seemed bigger than my Outback wagon as I freaked out the woman driving it staring at her new car. I gave her a friendly wave and got off at the next exit.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    That high belt line makes it seem even taller than it is.
  • freealfasfreealfas Member Posts: 652
    good point with the PT(add HHR & caliber(pt replacement) while at it) forgot about those. I've always seen them as little trucks hence my overlooking them.(see progress, we agreed already in 08, I'm not holding out the same for albook though...LOL)

    "As far as clearance goes, 8" is about par for this class, so Ford came in a little low in that regard, plus it's not as tall (or at least tall looking) as some others, hence all the controversy."

    Accurate memory is such a fleeting thing around here, to put this more correctly on the chart of time and space the FS came in at its 5"+/- and the rest came in higher. So if one actually thinks about it the pacifica and FS defining the CUV segment 1-2 years before the rest(pilot is more SUV than CUV IMO) I'd argue some stepped in it a bit more than others... but I've already done that. GM simply made them bigger to its detriment in the finest of americans tradition, mazda sacrificed 3rd row for zoom zoom looks, hyundai I don't think has as much room as the FS and the pilot may/may not be a contender in its new guise, highlander only plus is hybrid but at more expense that may/may not recoup the upfront.
  • larryqwlarryqw Member Posts: 52
    Yes, I tested the TX and Outlook with the Captain's seats in each car's second row. The Outlook's second seat's slide mechanism had big slots in the floor that prevented much of a floor mat, and appeared to me as just waiting to get gummed up by the trash my kids generate. But the bigger issue is that the second row on the Outlook just wasn't comfortable for taller people. I've seen numerous reviews saying the same.

    BTW, I was wrong and the Outlook and Taurus X are listed as having front legroom of 41.3 and 40.8", respectively - only another 0.5" for the Outlook. I was thinking of the Highlander that had more front legroom (43.2"). In any case, the Outlook front legroom felt much better to me with my long legs, but the T-X was barely acceptable.

    As for manuverability, bobw3 said it just right in his response.
    "You also have to do is test drive two vehicles and see which ones feels more maneuverable. When you're driving on the streets with cars around you, in parking lots, getting around tight spaces, etc, a wider vehicle can feel less maneuverable since because of the added bulk, you have less room to maneuver. Plus since the TX is lower to the ground, it feels more car-like in it's handling characteristics. I've seen several posts on how the Acadia is more SUV like and that the TX is more of a station wagon. Well, I'd say most cars handle better and are more maneuverable than an SUV, so if the FS/TX is more car-like and the Acadia more SUV-like, then that would also suggest that the FS/TX handles better and is more maneuverable. Maneuverability is sort of a combination of objective professional tests and subjective road tests."

    Yes, it's more than just turning circle. The Outlook just felt like a giant truck to me and the Taurus X felt like a car or wagon to me. It's being lower to the ground, better visibility, narrower width for parking in small spaces and still being able to open the doors (Outlook is almost 4" wider). On professional tests, both do well, but the Taurus just felt like more of a car to me, which for me is a good thing.
  • zman3zman3 Member Posts: 857
    We have an 06 Outback and an Enclave. Trust me, the Lambda's are as big as they look. There is no comparison whatsoever between the two vehicles.
  • chuckhoychuckhoy Member Posts: 420
    Will people please stop with the "(fill in the blank) is not a CUV, but (fill in the blank) is" bickering. How old are we? I don't know about others but I am sick of reading post after post about how 1" here or 1" there makes or breaks the definition of a CUV. Dear God can we just stop.
  • larryqwlarryqw Member Posts: 52
    Yes, it's sometimes hard to pigeon hole the new cars in all their varieties.

    When looking for the Taurus X on various sites, I have to look in all three categories:
    * Wagon
    * Mid-size SUV
    * Crossover

    Depending on the web site, Edmunds, Yahoo, Ford, IIHS,... it can be in any of the above catagories. Note that Consumer Reports just put the T-X in the same category as other Crossovers. If the professionals can't agree, how will we on this thread?

    Personally, I think the Taurus X is the more wagon-like of the Crossovers, based on a similar car, and lower to the ground, which is what attracts me to it. But as a Sable Wagon owner, I see it much different from a wagon. It's seat height is higher, between that of a car and SUV, one of the original definitions of a Crossover (you don't go up or down to get in, you "cross-over"). It uses command seating. And it has a general shape and utility of an SUV.

    SUVs way back were originally designed for off-road to be tall with high ground clearance to get over rocks. They were designed to be narrow to get through trees. This made an high unstable center of gravity which was fine at the speeds one's moving off road. But they were roll-over death traps at high speeds and cornering on highways. So they slowly evolved to get less ground clearance and wider (see the MDX) for the way people really use them while imagining they're outdoorsmen in their fantasies.

    The Crossover just takes this evolution more back towards the car construction and design. Crossovers, in my opinion is just a way to get the SUV image and utility, while staying away from the minivan or wagon stigma by making an in-between vehicle, a little of each but not any of one. Similarly, the Taurus X is a bit larger with more room than most wagons, almost a minivan, or is that an SUV? I'm confused. :confuse:
    Oh, it's just a Taurus X.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    High beltline or not, the driver appeared to be sitting quite a bit higher than me.

    No mas definitions? The way the market is going we're all going to be driving crossovers in a while anyway.

    Maybe we'll still be able to call smart cars subcompacts for a few years until they upsize them to CR-V size.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Reminds me of the good ol' days in the Forester vs. CR-V threads.

    Back then, the term "crossover" wasn't widespread.

    The Honda fans swore up and down that the CR-V was an SUV, and the Forester was a wagon. Ground clearance was the issue they pointed to most often. I argued both were wagons. No low range, no frame, no skid plates - wagons.

    Also, now that the term crossover is popularized, noone would call the CR-V an SUV. Everyone calls it a crossover.

    So here we are, in 2008, and finally we can settle an argument that we had 10 years ago.

    The CR-V is not an SUV, nor has it ever been. :P

    I have high hopes for 2018. Perhaps by then we'll have even more categories that these will fit into more naturally. :D
  • vad1819vad1819 Member Posts: 309
    "GM simply made them bigger to its detriment in the finest of americans tradition...."
    The Lambda platform is designed for mini-vans, then GM has decided stop produced vans, instant Outlook came first (should be Pontiac), then an Acadia.
  • larryqwlarryqw Member Posts: 52
    baggs32 said:
    "Now a headphone jack near the floor would be nice (it's up high on the Ford) and tripping on that probably wouldn't be as much of an issue as the headphones are light and the wire usually pulls out very easily. A/V wires are much tighter and don't give as easily. "

    The Family Entertainment System (FES) in the Taurus X comes with two wireless headphones. And either headphone can be switch to channel A or B independently, so they can listen to the same or different things.

    Most important, no wires need to be involved. That's best of all. If two wireless headphones aren't enough, more wireless headphones can likely be purchased.

    The wires are really only needed for input from a game or camera or other such device.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    or is it albook thinks he has game and therefore can say anything he wants night????

    Reighning champ.

    Barnstormer- sorry if I hurt you feelings. I wasn't talking about the 500/FS only. I would have said the same thing if you had a Camry and a Highlander (though those two are much more differentiated). I just like more variety.

    since you see fit to call another readers driveway occupants boring why don't you share with the class what resides in your driveway so we can do the same???

    Guess it's only fair. An '05 BMW 545i, a '94 3 series convertible (bought used for fun) and an '01 GMC Yukon- which is why I'm on this Forum. I like the Yukon, and through over 120k miles, I've kept it in good condition. I really like to keep my cars a long time (not paying a note every month is awesome!), but the kids have gotten bigger and gas prices are kicking my...
    Hopefully I can get 2-3 more years out of the Yukon- which hasn't had too many problems.
  • freealfasfreealfas Member Posts: 652
    "I would have said the same thing if you had a Camry and a Highlander (though those two are much more differentiated)."

    I'd love to hear how you can even remotely rationalize that statement, oh I have it as with each little pearl we know you more and more, they have different ride heights therefore they must be MUCH MORE DIFFERENTIATED than the 500/FS.

    "I just like more variety"

    Not sure how that statement fits either;

    barnstormer - 4 door sedan, check... CUV/SUV shaped thing... check
    albook - 4 door sedan, check... bigger SUV shaped thing... check, + token wknd toy to avert the crisis.

    actual difference - you spent more money not only upfront but also with the ongoing gas bill.

    both driveways accomplish and constitute the EXACT same idealogical makeup.

    maybe barnstormer's holding out and has a plane(sig may impy) or a bike or something equally token that would add the "variety" you believe you enjoy vs. his selections.

    Now I'd love you to share your definition of the word variety with us.
  • vad1819vad1819 Member Posts: 309
    "Yes, I tested the TX and Outlook with the Captain's seats in each car's second row. The Outlook's second seat's slide mechanism had big slots in the floor that prevented much of a floor mat, and appeared to me as just waiting to get gummed up by the trash my kids generate. But the bigger issue is that the second row on the Outlook just wasn't comfortable for taller people. I've seen numerous reviews saying the same."

    That's why I bought with the 60/40 bench. I don't have any problem with the trash from kids to slide a seat, because GM designed for it. When you slide all dirt is cleaning from the tracks. I have not believe in it (dealer told me) but using for the while its true statement. When I looked at ford seats (2nd row) it's looks smaller space there, you don't really hip support.
    Anyway there are two best American wagon/SUV. I'm still thinking, even this forum thinks different, that lambdas are much different vehicles, it may be a true CUV.
    Some people will not admit this (made in japan lovers). I couldn't hold it anymore.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    Each of the two seats in the TX 3rd row look wider than each of the 3 individual seating positions in the lambda's 3rd row.

    Yes- the TX's third row does look wider, but not by much.And from experioence sitting in the two, I don't have a problem with the width- or the seatbelt. What I do like is that I can fold the 40 portion of the seat down and still put two kids- or a kid and an adult back there. that opens up a lot more cargo space.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles