Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Have you recently switched from a luxury sedan to a luxury SUV?
A reporter would like to talk to you; please reach out to [email protected] by 7/25 for more details.
Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Crossover SUV Comparison

1168169171173174237

Comments

  • As to light colored mats. My 2007 Lucerne had the 'ice cream' mats.

    Bought (on the net) a set of black mats with a Buick logo. Heavier than the factory mats.

    When I sell the car, the ice cream mats go back in.
  • Hello all. This is my first post to this Crossover forum. I am looking to buy a Crossover to replace a van that comes off lease in March.

    I have skimmed or read most of the posts that relate to Crossovers during the last week. There is a lot of excellent info here. You guys/gals are doing a great job, especially when you are talking about Crossovers. I have learned a lot already. I particularly like how you discuss so many details that I should consider looking into when I start my Crossover comparison; such as rear visibility, easy access to third row, towing capacity, interior comfort (in so many ways and measurements!), usable cargo space (tons of info there), handling, acceleration, dash light colours, nav systems, etc.

    Background info
    I have no particular loyalty or affiliation with any brand; we’ve owned 2 Nissans, 2 Hondas, 3 GMs, 8 Fords (which included 6 vans, 1 suv, 2 wagons, 6 sedans)

    Needs
    Van-like room for up to 6 adults and luggage (have 4 grown children, no grandchildren yet)
    Must be comfortable for long trips for up to 6 adults (5-20 hours drive time)
    Easy access to all seats required for adults
    Towing capability required only for a small boat or tent trailer
    Must not look like a van or wagon (or so the wife says, as she is tired of that look)
    The closer it looks to a Lexus RX350 the better (her current favourite style)
    Looking for a “balanced ride” (not too firm/sporty, but not too cushy or isolated either)

    Under consideration at this point (alphabetically)
    Buick Enclave, Honda Pilot, Hyundai Veracruz, GMC Acadia, Mazda CX-9, Toyota Highlander

    At the moment, I’m gathering info, and will soon be heading out to the showrooms to have a look and sit in all of them. Will test drive as many as possible. I have to make a decision by mid March, when the van lease ends.
  • nxs138nxs138 Posts: 481
    The closer it looks to a Lexus RX350 the better

    That would narrow your choice to the Enclave, Veracruz, and CX-9.

    Roominess: Of those, only the Enclave and CX-9 give you "real" room for 6 adults and luggage (the Enclave only has 1 more cubic foot of luggage capacity than the CX-9). The Enclave does offer captains chairs, while the CX-9 does not--so the Enclave will likely have easier access to the third row if you opt for captains chairs.

    Ride: The Enclave's ride is more forgiving than the CX-9--reviewers say it is too soft, but I found it to be okay, although it definitely has more body roll than the CX-9. The CX-9 is more like a European sports sedan. In everyday driving, I found the Enclave to be a bit slow (it is the slowest of the GM Lambdas), and a bit hesitant when pressing the throttle. My wife also agreed that the CX-9 is more responsive.

    Towing: you can tow 3500 lbs with the CX-9, 4500 lbs with the Enclave.

    Good luck. I would definitely try the Enclave/CX-9 first, and then go from there. You will see that the other choices have much less room behind the third row (except for the Acadia, but that doesn't look like a Lexus!)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    It's a shame the wife doesn't want a van again, because it sounds like exactly what you guys are looking for. Room, ease-of-access, light towing, etc...
  • vad1819vad1819 Posts: 309
    For situation will best choice is Suburban. The only this vehicle (also van) will accommodate 6 adults, plus luggage and tow capacity comfortably. None of CUV's will be comfortable in third row seat for adult. The third row in CUV designed for kids only. The trip for 5-20 hours for adult in third row any CUV will be nightmare.
  • chuckhoychuckhoy Posts: 420
    That depends on the size of the adults. I am the tallest in my family at 5'9" so the 3rd row is fine for us. We fit seven people (4 adults 3 kids) in our Outlook for a 600 mile trip. Nobody complained about comfort.

    I do agree that the largest ones are the only ones that would work for you. I would seriously look at the TX if you only want to seat 6. It is the best combination of price, comfort and mpg. We got an Outlook because we wanted to seat 7 (our family + a couple) and the CX-9 and FS were a bit cramped for 7. I have no experience with the VC because it was not out at the time.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,992
    Try the CX-9 & Enclave first and see which one you like driving the most. That will really tell if either too hard or too soft...a real test with some adults in the 3rd row. I'd say the TX is out based on his wife not wanting it to look like a wagon. It's actually a pretty simple decision when what they want is pretty narrow, especially in terms of looks and size.I'll bet the Enclave is the winner, especially if price isn't too much of an issue.
  • vad1819vad1819 Posts: 309
    "That depends on the size of the adults. I am the tallest in my family at 5'9" so the 3rd row is fine for us. We fit seven people (4 adults 3 kids) in our Outlook for a 600 mile trip. Nobody complained about comfort."

    I have an Acadia, so you're right it can be done. But I got this vehicle only because don't want have a van and planning use third row for kids only.The adults can seat there, but my opinion it same affect, as you have small sedan and 3 people seat there. Hopefully, after 6 years I can degrade size of my car. It's easy to rent van if it's need it.
  • Thanks for the suggestions everyone.

    (nxs138) That would narrow your choice to the Enclave, Veracruz, and CX-9

    I was thinking the same thing, but I want to give the others a fair shake as well.

    (thegraduate) It's a shame the wife doesn't want a van again

    I agree. I was kind of leaning towards a Honda Odyssey myself, but she has firmly put her foot down on that. She won’t even go look at one.

    (Vad1819) For situation will best choice is Suburban…..The third row in CUV designed for kids only

    True enough, especially if you want to err on the side of having too much room rather than too little. We had a Suburban before and liked it, but it’s not in the running this time around. A bit too costly to buy and operate.

    (chuckhoy) That depends on the size of the adults. I am the tallest in my family at 5'9" so the 3rd row is fine for us. I would seriously look at the TX if you only want to seat 6

    Yes, I did not mention that my three daughters are all under 5’5”. Although one’s husband is 6’5, and one’s boyfriend is 6’. So depending on who we are taking with us, there are usually a few “smaller” sized people. My son and I are both 6’. And I’m afraid that the Taurus X looks too much like a wagon for my wife (sigh!).

    (bobw3) Try the CX-9 & Enclave first and see which one you like driving the most. That will really tell if either too hard or too soft...a real test with some adults in the 3rd row

    I’m hesitant to try these first, as my wife might get hung up on the styling, and not want to look at some of the others. I was thinking of trying out the Toyota Highlander first, as it shares some components (including engine), with the RX350. Plus a friend works at the local Toyota dealership, and he’s been after me to give Toyota a try. I’ve never owned a Toyota, but if it’s the right vehicle for my wife and family, I would happily buy one. I’ve got an appointment to check it out tomorrow. I’ll let you know how it goes.
  • nxs138nxs138 Posts: 481
    I was thinking of trying out the Toyota Highlander first

    The new Highlander is a nice vehicle. Nice and peppy ride. Not much room behind the third row, and I wish that the third row was split (you have to fold the whole thing down).

    Let me know if you think that the steering if over-assisted. I didn't feel connected to the road, but at least I could turn the thing with one finger!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Actually I looked again and that magazine scores them all tied up, but I'd still take the quicker and more fuel efficient Forester XT.

    Mitsu has done a good job putting toppings on the sundae, though. Perhaps to draw attention away from the platform's roots (Dodge Caliber) and the engine's roots (shared with Dodge and Hyundai). I guess I wish the ice cream used under all those toppings were better.

    Like I mentioned earlier, though, all that cost cutting is what allowed them to invest in the stereo and some of the neat features you listed.

    That makes me wonder, though, did Mitsubishi use MyGig, and just change the name? They seem to share a lot with Chrysler.
  • I was under the impression that the Outlander was done on their own, not sharing much with anyone else.

    After 11,000 miles in my 2007 Outlander I can say that the chassis is very good. Solid feeling with very little flex... and no creaks or rattles. The suspension is a little bit on the firm side which gives it the best handling in the class. Initially I was worried it was going to be too stiff but after driving it for a while I think it's very good.

    The MIVEC V6 is a good engine. It's the first SULEV 3 liter V6 in a crossover SUV so it runs clean and gets good real world mileage, for me it's 20 mpg around town and 25 mpg on the freeway. It has good acceleration with the 6 speed automatic, around town it has a willing/lively feel and gets going easily without being thrashy like the CRV.

    The NAV/stereo/DVD/satellite are great on the Outlander. The touch screen is simple to use and looks clean, much nicer than the cluttered look of some cars that use voice activation and lots of knobs. The Rockford Fosgate 650W stereo is one of my favorite features.

    The 3rd row seat is perfect for kids when you need some extra room. They actually fight to be able to sit in the back row. And it stores completely out of the way most of the time. Beats driving a big 12 mpg SUV or a minvan for me.

    The Outlander is definitely worth a look, you can get one loaded for under $30K.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,992
    Your original post said,
    Van-like room for up to 6 adults and luggage
    If you still want that then the Highlander is out.
  • psychogunpsychogun Posts: 129
    Hmmm... the XT is certainly quicker but not necessarily more fuel efficient. Edmunds has the XT at 18/24, whereas the Outlander is at 17/25, could be a toss-up...

    Also, consider that the Outlander has more interior space and is larger than the XT.

    The Caliber is actually based on the Outlander platform, and a DCX finalized derivative thereof to boot. When DCX sold it's stake in Mitsubishi in 2004 (18 months before the Outlander was launched), both companies finalized the platform on their own. So there are differences between the two.
    http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060808/FREE/60807008/1041/P- - HOTOS
    The 3.0l V6 is a pure Mitsubishi design and not related to the 4B series of engines co-developed by DCX/Hyundai/Mitsubishi.
    Incidentally, the main thing shared in the above venture is the basic block. The head and other elements are modified by each manufacturer for their own needs.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_4B1_engine
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I'm sure Dodge was in on the platform design at an early stage, nowadays they have to be. They all use the GS platform, though.

    In the thread where this discussion came from, we were talking about the 4B12 2.4l engine, which shares a block with Hyundai and Dodge. That was in the context of the Car & Driver comparison of small SUVs from this month's issue.

    The Forester offers a manual transmissions and AFAIK Mitsubishi doesn't. The list of available manuals keeps getting shorter, in fact Subaru is dropping the manual from the turbos for 2009. :(

    Back to the Outlander, let me pose the question to the whole group - does it matter to you that the platform is shared with Chrysler? The engine with Chrysler/Hyundai?

    Chelentano was boasting about Mitsubishi's past success in Dakar Rallying, but I didn't think it was very relevant in this case, so I'll ask, what do you folks think? Positive influence, negative, or none at all?

    We used to own a Lancer and I lusted after a Galant VR-4 back in the day, but I felt like Mitsu becamse the Japanese Chrysler there for a while and sort of lost their identity a bit, with the EVO being the exception.

    My personal answers:

    Yes, the GS platform had to be built to meet certain cost targets, and here I think the Dodge Caliber drags it down a bit in my eyes.

    Same for the 2.4l engine, and the Mitsu even makes less power than the same block in a Caliber. The V6 is not shared, so no qualms there, but the output could still be better.

    Finally, my opinion is that the Dakar rally helps the Outlander about as much as NASCAR racing helps the Ford Fusion.

    No, that's not a typo, because Mitsu races heavily modified trucks in Dakar, and the Outlander is merely a smaller sibling to those trucks, just as a Focus is to the Fusion.

    I'll open the floor for other opinions...
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Chelentano was boasting about Mitsubishi's past success in Dakar Rallying, but I didn't think it was very relevant in this case, so I'll ask, what do you folks think? Positive influence, negative, or none at all?

    I've had that discussion with him before. Good luck.
  • I personally don't care if the chassis is shared with anything else, because the bottom line is that it's a stiff, safe and capable chassis. That being said, I doubt very much is shared between the Caliber and the Outlander.

    I have the V6 and wouldn't consider any of the current 4 cylinder engines for use in a medium sized CUV. For example, the Honda 2.4L engine is wonderful in the Accord but horrible in the heavier CR-V. And I'm not a fan of using forced induction to boost the output of a 4 cylinder engine, so the CX7 and RDX didn't make the cut.

    I've always given a slight advantage to manufacturers that are capable of dominating a racing class. It's not necessarily about how close to stock the vehicles are, because almost no race cars are close to stock, but more about the ability of the manufacturer to focus on the goal and put together a team that can produce outstanding results. In the end the valuable lessons that the engineers learn ofter make their way into a superior product.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    the Honda 2.4L engine is wonderful in the Accord but horrible in the heavier CR-V.

    Apparently you are in a major minority.

    The Honda CR-V outsells all other options here. It is also basically equivalent to the 3.0L V6 Escape (while the Honda gets much better MPG), a vehicle which led the pack until the 4-cylinder CR-V took over as leader.

    Is the CR-V a hot-rod? Nope, nor is the Escape, Outlander, Rogue, etc. In this class of vehicles (small wagons/CUVs) I don't see the need for using any more gas than necessary.

    For the record, the EPA lists economy for these two as:

    CR-V AWD - 20/26
    Outlander V6 AWD - 17/24

    If having a 0-60 time of 1 second quicker is worth getting less economy, go for it. It doesn't mean people who choose otherwise are wrong for it, though. You aren't wrong for choosing a V6, either.
  • vad1819vad1819 Posts: 309
    The only difference V6 much smoother and quieter.
  • Well, we test drove the base model Highlander 4Wd today (2WD not available in Canada). What a nice vehicle. Or as my wife said, “What a sweet ride!”
    Very smooth and powerful. Very quiet. Comfortable. Nice driving position. Good controls all around (except perhaps the cruise control stalk is hidden behind the steering wheel). Good visibility.

    (nxs138) The new Highlander is a nice vehicle. Nice and peppy ride. Not much room behind the third row, and I wish that the third row was split (you have to fold the whole thing down).

    Let me know if you think that the steering if over-assisted. I didn't feel connected to the road, but at least I could turn the thing with one finger!

    (bobw3) Your original post said,
    “Van-like room for up to 6 adults and luggage “
    If you still want that then the Highlander is out.


    You are both correct. I agree, the steering was perhaps a bit isolated, probably due to it being electric and not hydraulic. It wasn’t horrible though. And yes, the third seat is an issue. Access to the third seat is poor, even for children. And I would guess that it is only comfortable for small adults or children. It certainly was not comfortable for my wife or myself. If you needed to use the third seat all the time, then this is not the vehicle for you. But, as we only need the third seat occasionally, we have not ruled the Highlander out just yet. Also, storage behind the third seat is minimal. If we took this vehicle on a road trip with 6 people inside, two of the people would need to be small, and we would need to put a luggage carrier on top. A road trip for 4 or 5 would probably be okay.

    The second row seats are great, except for the removable centre section, which is also just suitable for “smaller people”.

    The fact that the third seat is one piece is a major design flaw. You should be able to put one person in half the third seat, and fold the other half down to increase your storage space. That’s quite an oversight for Toyota.

    Styling is not very impressive either (as I suspected) according to my wife. But having said all that, she did not rule the Highlander out completely at this point. I think she really enjoyed driving it.

    I imagine that she feels that the vehicle would be great for her everyday use, and perhaps adequate for the occasional long trip with the kids. On the other hand, I’m pretty sure that this vehicle will slide down the list, as we test drive it’s roomier (hopefully) competitors.

    I’m not sure which one we’ll test drive next, but it should be later this week.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The only difference V6 much smoother and quieter.

    The only difference?

    How about more power and more fuel used.

    And, V6 doesn't always gurantee smoother. Having heard some of the old GM pushrod V6 engines (3100, 3400, 3800), I can tell ya there are some 4-bangers out there that are smoother.

    That's not typically the case though; usually a V6 is smoother than a 4.
  • Apparently you are in a major minority.

    I'm sure I'm in the minority because the CR-V is an established vehicle in the class, pretty much guaranteed to be among the top sellers. But that doesn't automatically make it a better vehicle.

    Drive the I4 CR-V and V6 Outlander back-to-back and you'll see the Outlander is in a completely different category. It doesn't downshift frequently, it doesn't have to rev to redline when getting on the freeway, it doesn't bog down with 4 passengers, it can tow twice as much, and it is so much smoother and quieter. I'll give up a few mpg for all of the benefits of the V6.

    I really wanted to like the CR-V because I own a 2003 I4 Accord EX-L that has been a great vehicle. Unfortunately the CR-V just wasn't fun to drive and lacked a lot of important features for me (3rd row, 6 speed, HID headlights, V6, SULEV rating, 18" alloy etc).
  • >> Actually I looked again and that magazine scores them all tied up, but I'd still take the quicker and more fuel efficient Forester XT.

    Like psychogun correctly said the Forester is not more fuel efficient. But if you’d like to compare it to a heavier vehicles, then yes it is more fuel efficient then Navigator. Also the Forester’s 4-cylider turbo is not as smooth as V6. The turbo has to work harder, burns premium fuel and it supports smaller payload.
    .

    >> Mitsu has done a good job putting toppings on the sundae, though. Perhaps to draw attention away from the platform's roots (Dodge Caliber)

    The Outlander is not based on Caliber, but it’s more like the other way around. And unlike the Caliber, the US-sold Outlander build entirely in Japan with all Japanese parts and labor, which is the main reason it has highest CR reliability and Edmunds/MSN/YahooAutos owner satisfaction ratings. The Outlander is originally based on Lancer platform and now the Outlander is a platform on its own. It’s a parent to a couple of French SUVs: Peugeot and Citroën sell their own rebadged versions of the Outlander.

    image
    image
  • >> Chelentano was boasting about Mitsubishi's past success in Dakar Rallying, but I didn't think it was very relevant in this case, so I'll ask, what do you folks think?

    Well, you keep forgetting how we got started talking about Dakar in that thread. Mitsubishi’s success in Dakar Rallying is not less relevant, then your phony Youtube marketing video, where Subarus CTI beat Lancers EVO. Here I’d have to agree to aviboy97: do you really want to continue that conversation?

    If that’s the case, be my guest and check out this news, which make the Outlander pretty darn relevant to Dakar: http://www.easier.com/view/News/Motoring/Mitsubishi/article-153196.html

    "The Mitsubishi Outlander has been selected to be the sole support vehicle for Team Repsol Mitsubishi Ralliart’s title defence in 2008. The modified Outlander will tackle the support vehicles’ route, which differs only slightly from the competing cars. These vehicles require a high degree of off-road ability to cross the challenging terrain of the region's vast, sandy and rocky expanses. The 2008 Dakar Outlander has been modified to comply with ASO's safety regulations and features four racing bucket seats with full harness belts, a safety roll-cage, an additional fuel tank, underbody protection, Bose dampers, navigational equipment, and a host of other features. The engine, running gear, and fundamental chassis architecture however remain identical to the standard production car." This year rally of course was cancelled for security reasons, but that’s a different story…

    image
  • That’s right: the best selling vehicle is not always the best vehicle. For instance 2007 Toyota RAV4 sells in much bigger quantities, but according to Edmunds.com owners give the RAV4 not as good ratings (8.9) as to the the 2007 Outlander (9.2). Consumer Reports also puts the Outlander ahead, giving it best 2008 predicted reliability rating in the small SUV category (along with Honda Element).

    Marketing spending and dealer network make a big difference.
  • bobe1bobe1 Posts: 3
    I was about to buy a GMC Acadia when I read many entries on the Acadia Problems and Repairs forum. I couldn't tell if these problems are in 0.1% of the CUVs or in 10%. It also seemed that the problems were new model bugs that should be have been eliminated by today. I'm thinking about the 1) passenger side air bag on/off, 2) electrical power interruption with engine stopping, 3) gas pedal vibrating, and 4) Stabilitrack & traction control not working. What are the chances that I would see these problems if I bought a new 08 Acadia?
  • freealfasfreealfas Posts: 652
    wow... those are some fun problems...
  • vad1819vad1819 Posts: 309
    "I can tell ya there are some 4-bangers out there that are smoother. "
    Please examples of old 4 -cyc. that smoother that old GM V6.
  • chuckhoychuckhoy Posts: 420
    I have said this before and I'll say it again. If you look in a forum with "Car X Problems and Repairs" in the title, you will tend to only see people who have problems. That goes for any make or model. Honda, BMW, GM, whatever.

    That being said, I think the sunroof issue is a real concern if you get a Lambda with a sunroof. Personally, I don't like sunroofs because they weaken the roof in case of a rollover and it is just another thing that can fail. But, lots of people love them and I am in the minority here. If I got a Lambda with a sunroof, I would make the dealer check to make sure the drainage tube is connected properly.

    BTW: I have had my Outlook since Memorial Day last year and we have had no problems whatsoever. Even in snow, ice and -10 F weather. Today it is -15 F and it ran just like it always does. By far the nicest car I have ever owned.
  • vad1819vad1819 Posts: 309
    I have mine since October last year. it's 08 model. The only thing I have done since I bought it, was transmission software update. I have not felt difference first 1000 miles, that the trans. starts working better. But now I have almost 3000 miles, MPG in promissing range and trans works perfect. I don't have any problems with trac. control, engine stopping, pass air bag and ect. So go ahead buy it, you won't regret it!
Sign In or Register to comment.