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…100101103105106…142

Comments

  • txbricklayertxbricklayer Member Posts: 16
    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.
  • hoser0ehhoser0eh Member Posts: 46
    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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 2,989
    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 Member 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.
  • hoser0ehhoser0eh Member Posts: 46
    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 Member 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 Member 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.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Member Posts: 194
    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 Member Posts: 2,989
    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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Member Posts: 194
    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 Member 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 Member Posts: 309
    The only difference V6 much smoother and quieter.
  • hoser0ehhoser0eh Member Posts: 46
    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 Member 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.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Member Posts: 194
    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).
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> 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
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> 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
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    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 Member 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 Member Posts: 652
    wow... those are some fun problems...
  • vad1819vad1819 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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!
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    I think Honda made a big mistake by not putting a 3rd row into the CRV. Even if it was small, like the Highlander or RAV4, it would at least be an option for the occasional kid use. The first two rows are great and I love the folding table between the front 2 seats (much better than a fixed center console in my opinion.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Touchee.

    I do think that the support vehicle is a neat idea, in fact Subaru does the same thing. They pre-run with a Forester (more recently Tribeca) to do a Reconaissance, and take course notes for the race. In rallies like Kenya, the terrain is brutal so these are a good test for those vehicles.

    You lost me here:

    your phony Youtube marketing video

    It was real, and it was hosted by a popular JDM magazine. :P

    In one breath you brag about how your Outlander is made in Japan, and how great that is, and in the next you dismiss a popular show from that same country.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Would you want a 3rd row like the one in the Outlander, though? Check it out:

    image

    I wouldn't want my kids back there. They'd probably be safer sitting on the roof. You get rear-ended and there's just no crush space.

    I think it's a compact trying to stretch a bit much, to compete with the other vehicles discussed in this thread.

    So I would consider one only as a 5 seater.

    Other concerns?

    Visibility. A backup cam and/or backup sensor options are neat, but they're basically necessary because of the huge blind spot on the D-pillar. Why not build a car you can see out of in the first place?

    Well, to be honest I really don't trust the brand. After the hidden recall scandal, and the hangover from dealing with bad credit and 0/0/0 deals, I'm not sure if Mitsubishi has fully recovered. Even now residuals are poor:

    https://www.alg.com/deprratings.aspx

    Outlander gets only 2 stars.

    Owners seem really happy, so perhaps I'll check one out. I'm heading over to the DC auto show on Saturday (anyone else in the DC area going?).

    They have an EVO there, though it's not open. They also have the new 2009 Forester, so I can compare it back to back with the Outlander.

    Funny thing is Mitsubishi's display is right next to Subaru's. :shades:
  • nxs138nxs138 Member Posts: 481
    Can you wait for the 2009 Acadia?

    I like the Acadia, but have the same concerns as you. The 2007 model was full of problems, which the 2008 model attempted to correct. I'm still not sold on the 2008 model being as good as it should be, so I'm waiting to see what they do with the 2009 model (if I can wait that long). The 2009 model is supposedly getting some new transmission software, if you believe the GM insiders. Maybe a boost in HP, too?
  • vad1819vad1819 Member Posts: 309
    Some rumors flying around, that maybe will be engine with DI ( Direct-Injection), the same one CTS use right now. It will add another 25 HP.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    2.3L 4-cyl in the 1998 Honda Accord. Run it to redline then run an Equinox, or older Malibu to redline. The difference in smoothness is amazing. The 3.1, 3.4, and 3.8 thrash at high rpms, the Honda runs as smoothly at 5k RPM as it does at 2k. The new 4-cylinder engines are smoother than the pushrod designs GM still puts out today (those gravelly V6 engines in the Impala, Buick Lucerne, etc), I'd say. Others may (and probably will) disagree. That's fine. We're all entitled.

    It's time GM gets those pushrods (3500, 3800, 3900) out to pasture. The 3.6L is a MUCH better engine as far as smoothness goes, they just need to get production ramped up enough.

    On a side note, and possibly a different topic, why does the Saturn Vue weigh over 2 tons? It's not that big, but it is surprisingly porky.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    There are a lot of vehicles with the 3rd row close to the rear window (Rondo, Mazda 5, Highlander, etc.), and I'll bet that if Honda designed one it would be a lot better than the one on the Outlander.

    When cars are tested for safety, there are test for high speed collisions on the side, in the front and in the front off-set, because these are the most common high speed collission. Rear-end collissions are generally low-speed, and the design of the headrests are usually the deciding factor on the safety rating for rear-end collissions.
  • vad1819vad1819 Member Posts: 309
    2.3L 4-cyl in the 1998 Honda Accord.
    I've always thought this engine very noisy at low or high RPM. It has some strange noise at high RPM. I had ford Taurus 1992 with V6, so it was very smooth engine. But second car was Altima 1996 had very noisy engine at high RPM (4 cyc). I've never like Honda's 4 cyc. engine, they all noisy, but reliable.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I've heard rumors of a new rear crash test. IMHO that can't arrive soon enough.

    I bet we see some of these diminuitive 3rd rows disappear if that test does arrive.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124405

    In particular I like this part:

    we could throw the Forester into corners without worrying about throwing it into the trees at the same time. A vehicle so high off the ground should not be able to corner like this, yet it does. It should roll and dive, yet it doesn't. We just couldn't get over it.

    Now that's what I'm talking 'bout. :shades:

    While shopping for a bigger crossover with 3 rows I had sort of given up on getting something truly fun (in my price range, sorry MDX), but this gives me hope for our next car.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Maybe because the chance of getting hit directly in the rear at high speed is pretty rare there haven't been any high speed tests.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Perhaps.

    I got slammed pretty hard a while back.

    It was just me in the car, well, my dog too. The dog was harnessed and fortunately we were both unharmed.

    The Saturn that rear-ended me was undriveable. She had to call a tow truck.

    It was a pretty violent crash. It definitely happens. :sick:
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I think you're confusing sound-deadening in the car with engine smoothness.

    This has gotten off-topic, and we've both made our points.

    Shall we move on?
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    What sort of vehicle were you driving and how was the damage to your car?
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    Honda has a new Accord based Suv coming out sized between the CRV and the Pilot. I personally would not buy Big 3 made,but that's just me.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    1998 Forester.

    It had just begun to rain, someone in front of me spun out, and that caused a chain reaction of short stops. I had no problem stopping, but...

    The Saturn sedan behind me did.

    My rear bumper was toast, plus one taillight and some damage to the rear quarter. She hit me hard enough to push me forward several feet.
  • volkovvolkov Member Posts: 1,306
    True those accidents are rare, but when you know someone who lost a child to a rear-end collision, then you find yourself paying much more attention to that detail. We do know someone who experienced that tragedy. Ruled out the Mazda and Rondo as soon as my wife saw them. I am honestly concerned that the stats on rear end injuries will start to rise given so many afterthought rear seats. What worries me is actually that as the rear crumples and absorbs, that children be crushed between seatbelt and seat if the seat pushes forward, but the outboard seatbelts remain stable. Even at low speed city driving, my neighbour's Caddy had the rear pushed in over 2 feet when hit at a light.
  • bobe1bobe1 Member Posts: 3
    Thanks for the reply. I don't think that I can wait for the 09 Acadia. Given GMs history of new model problems, I would have to wait into next year for the production to produce trouble free Acadias. This may be a good time to buy given that they have (we hope) solved the problems. The 08 is the second year for that design, although 07 was a short year. The 09 would be the first year again depending on the number of changes. It sounds like the 08 AWD still has bothersome shifting, but FWD is OK.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Member Posts: 194
    Maybe because the chance of getting hit directly in the rear at high speed is pretty rare there haven't been any high speed tests.

    Plus, the amount of time driving around with people in the third row is probably less than 10%. If you're going to use the third row a lot then you should probably choose a larger vehicle.

    Regarding the smoothness of I4 engines, it's not just about how smooth they are at redline. It's fairly common for an I4 car to have a rough idle, especially with an automatic transmission with the AC on.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Writing off all 4-cylinder engines because they are rougher would be just as fair as me writing off Front-Drive V6 vehicles because of torque steer.

    Not all are created equal.

    I for one have a 2.4L 4-cyl, basically identical to the one in the CR-V (2006 Accord, 166hp). It is easily as smooth as some V6 engines (like the ones in the old GM engine family). It doesn't make the CR-V fast, and some want that. No problem there from me - it's consumer's choice. It doesn't vibrate, regardless of A/C. A lot has to do with motor mounts.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles