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…104105107109110…142

Comments

  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    THough they do sound very contradicting, the two statements aren't too different. The exterior styling is dated and different from Chryslers current design language. And the concept took for ever to begin production. However, (and I did reread this message in the Journey board shortly before posting the message on this board), I was a bit harsh on the interior of the Pac when I compared it to the Enclave. THe Enclave is hands down nicer inside, and a better riding vehicle, but the Pacifica is still very nice inside- the topend version so much more attractive than some of its competitors. And sales do prove it wasn't succesful, but I answered that question- it was too pricey to begin with, and since it got off on a bad foot, it had a hard time catching on.

    I've explained myself. I want to here how you know so much about the lambdas despite never even sitting in one.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I'd pay to see that.

    I'll pitch in a Crossover of the Year trophy, toss it between the two of you, whoever gets it first keeps it.

    Cost of trophy: $150
    Flight to Chicago: $500
    Hotel in Chicago: $200 per night

    Watching you battle in person for Crossover of the Year? Priceless. :D

    The new Murano looks interesting. I much prefer the new interior over the old one, which seemed pieced together. I'm a bit surprised it didn't grow more, but I guess they already have the Pathfinder.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    I'd simply argue it as lazy design that will come back to bite them now that the new cafe regs are in place and they are going to have to do what they should have in the first place, cut weight. it will cost them more now to engineer the weight out as opposed to having done it correctly the first time plain and simple.

    No- it's not simply lazy design. It's proven that CUVs weigh signifigcantly more than minivans. The Honda Pilot being a foot shorter than the lambdas- and a minivan- weighs over 4500lbs- more than an Odessey. The Pacifica is 4600lbs. The only reason the FS only weighs 4100lbs is because it is nothing more than a big station wagon. Ford was lazy becuase they couldn't spend time to develop a proper CUV, and now they are paying for it with slow sales.

    GM wasn't lazy. The lambdas are some of the heaviest vehicles in the class, yet they get some of the best mpg numbers. That's smart engineering.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    Am I the only one who thinks this way?

    No- I think that could be part of it, but I don't think that cannabalized sales- at least not as much as the price tag.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    I have no idea what the Hyundai experience might be from a reliability or dealer service standpoint. I do know that our GM experience fit the unreliable stereotype, and is not "full of ...." unless you mean "full of genuine and honest experience".

    I can't say I agree with those who feel Hyundai is a saint when it comes to relaibility. I keep my cars in great condition, but my Huyndai Elantra had its fair share of problems.

    By the way, did you ever decide what to get?
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    IMHO the reason is they simply priced it too high. It costs more than a similar ML does, while it should have cost less. Most manufacturers price their minivans below their SUVs.

    It's because they changed the name to CUV. CUV to minivan = 5g premium. Plus- that's too much Benz to be under 40g.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    The lambdas are some of the heaviest vehicles in the class, yet they get some of the best mpg numbers

    While I agree that the lambdas have pretty good real-world mpg from the unscientific postings below, I'd say the TX (and especially my '05 FS) is even better. Yes, with the TX/FS you lose a little interior width and a little cargo room behind the 3rd row, but the TX/FS is just as capable of carrying 6 passengers as are the lambdas (but not 8) with nearly the same amount of luggage behind the 3rd row. And since we're not normally carrying a full load of adults very often, I'd rather have the better mpg over the added size.

    And in my 60,000 miles of experience with my 3 year old FS, my real-world MPG has been consistently in the low 20s around town and the mid to upper 20s on the highway, with nearly 30mpg on the highway if I keep the speed to 65mph. As far as repairs, I've had the the rear brake pads replaced at 50,000 (for free) and I've had a couple of electronic modules recalibrated (for free) at 45,000 miles and that's it. I just replaced the tires last month and still have the original wipers! Spacious on the inside for 6 adults, small on the outside, drives like a car, sits up high but not too high, good mpg, quiet smooth ride, reliable, solid feeling (no squeaks/rattles) and inexpensive (I paid $24,500). So if I sing praises to my FS...this is why ;)

    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList2&make=GMC&model=Acadia%2- 0FWD
    AVERAGES:
    Acadia 15mpg
    Enclave 20mpg
    Outlook '08, '07 21, 17mpg
    FS '05, '06, '07 23, 21, 22mpg
    TX 21mpg
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    It still stands that the lambbdas get MPG that contradict their size. And the FS isn't really smaller on the outside than the lambdas- except for width.
  • chuckhoychuckhoy Member Posts: 420
    It still stands that the lambbdas get MPG that contradict their size. And the FS isn't really smaller on the outside than the lambdas- except for width.

    I would disagree with both those statements. I test-drove a FS immediately after the Outlook and the FS was significantly small in every way. No, I don't have exact numbers, but I do have my eyes. Personally, I prefered the FS for precisely that reason but was over-ruled by a higher power. Then again, I don't think smaller is necessarily better or worse. Depends on your needs/wants. I thought they were both fine vehicles that served different, but similiar, purposes.

    That being said, I think the Lambdas could probably be lighter and still be OK. I am sure there are areas of the car where weight is added unnecessarily, But I don't want to crawl around to find them. It is a big and heavy car that drives like a big and heavy car. It is what it is. My guess is that safety standards add hundreds of pounds to every vehicle. I think that as carbon fiber beomes cheaper we will see it in more mainstream cars in the future.

    Weight is always the enemy of mpg. It is simple physics. Friction increases as weight increases. Simple test. Record your mpg while driving. Then add several bags of cement to your car.. Record mpg again over the same conditions. What one will be better?
  • vad1819vad1819 Member Posts: 309
    The MPG for TX is going to change in 08 model. They have bigger engine, so MPG is going down. We should wait for real update for TX.
  • vad1819vad1819 Member Posts: 309
    agree. the acadia big truck. TX is more wagon size, and of course it's lighter. But it's not interferes with driving abilities. I don't have any problems with the quick changing lanes. It has enough power.
  • freealfasfreealfas Member Posts: 652
    where do you want to meet???

    I could absolutely care less who wins cuv of the year... I want to go look at cars...

    you, Vad and the rest are at least consistent, that goes a long way in my book... that's who I'd want to hang/debate with.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    But you are one of the few out there who doesn't believe Ford was asleep at the wheel when designing the FS.
    Then I'll take an asleep Ford engineer over an awake GM engineer any day :P

    In terms of the FS it meant poor handling and no pickup.
    Not in the one that I drive.

    There is no arguing that it would have perfromed better had it had more power
    Good logic there...more power = better performance...that true with any vehicle on the road
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    A friend of mine works for Motorweek, they announce their Driver's Choice awards each year at the show. I think it's early on, during the press days.

    He's invited me the past couple of years, to go as his guest, and one of these days I'll take him up on the offer. I'd only have to pay air fare, basically, free passes the the show, catering, and even a hotel room to crash.

    Haven't ever been to the Windy City, so I'd love to go.

    Any big crossover debuts there? Subaru usually waits until NY, or NAIAS.
  • vad1819vad1819 Member Posts: 309
    Give me any example of good engineering from Ford from current years.
    Explorer used same platform for last 20 years.
    Edge - Mazda 5
    Expedition - see Explorer
    F-150 see Explorer
    Focus = Escort
    TX wagon and even worst - using Volvo platform.
    Fusion - Mazda again.
    Oh one engineering V-8 engine for Mustang.
    Even GT went wrong way.
  • freealfasfreealfas Member Posts: 652
    you so don't want to go there.
  • freealfasfreealfas Member Posts: 652
    I just go with dad as a father son thing, take a few pictures and grab a beer with dad after the fact. debut's I know not of, I just simply go for fun as I'm not in the market for anything right now. and when I do start throwing money at cars it won't be new, they'll be italian, name starts and ends with an "a", and be taken to the track. Our passat needs little more than maintenance and the FS is 2.5 years from being "ours". first I need to build a garage at our place in the city as we have none before I do anything else automotive related.

    you should take your friend up oin the offer one day, chicago is a great city, maybe even the best city in the country or world while we are at it, can't wait to see the next few posts after saying that...LOL

    seriously, if you haven't been, it's worth it on your own devices and to have partial expense paid trip makes it even a better proposition. make the time and do it, you'll have fun.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    There's no point in responding to nonsense posts...

    Whoever goes to these car shows, try to get some photos of the inside.
  • jimmy2xjimmy2x Member Posts: 124
    My - some of the people here need to take a chill pill. It is just a car folks - not a measure of your self-worth.

    FWIW, we are in the market for this type of vehicle for use as a retirement/trip car and will be actually buying this summer. I admit to being a bit all over the place so far as which one it will be but have elminated a few:
    RDX - too small and a bit of a rough ride.
    Outlander - not crazy about Mitsubishi reputation
    CRV & RAV4 - too small or plain

    Have actually driven the following:

    Acadia - very nice ride with a lot of features (SLT2). Expecially like the heated seats that heat both the bottom and/or the seat back (3 settings). Plenty of room, easy access to the 3rd row, easy to use NAV. May be a bit bigger than we really need. BTW, if you actually check the leading Acadia/Enclave/Outlook boards it would seem that most people love them.

    MDX - great front seats, busy dash, uncomfortable 2nd row seating (too upright with no adjustment available. Pricey.

    4Runner - I realize that this is NOT a CUV, but can easily accomplish the same function. Far more comfortable than I expected, good pickup (V6), bullet-proof reputation. This, of course, is a real truck capable of off-road use in almost any situation and heavy duty towing. I really like the look of them (old-school) but would have to give up some creature comforts at the same price range.

    Have not yet driven but have at least sat in.

    New Murano - very nice indeed (LE), but will have to see if I like the CVT. Seats very comfortable and 2nd row seats actually recline (not power). Remains on the short list.

    Edge - feels cheaply made - not much of a WOW factor, but priced right.

    Highlander - like the new look and will certainly take a drive.

    Veracruz - like it, but just not willing to take the risk that if we decide that we made a mistake, will REALLY take a beating on a trade.

    Would also have interest in the new Pilot - but if it really looks like the latest pics, forget it.
  • mpuzachmpuzach Member Posts: 635
    Have you checked out the Volvo XC90? If I needed a large CUV/SUV with 3rd row seating it would be on my short list. I actually had a brand new (2007) XC90 3.2 AWD for several months (company car - had to give it back when I left the company!) and loved it. It's solid, beautifully-built, nicely-equipped, and has a great overall feel to it. After giving it back I bought a brand new Hyundai Santa Fe Limited AWD. It's an absolutely wonderful vehicle and I can't say enough good things about it. I don't have the 3rd row seating (it's just my wife and me and we have 2 other cars) though it's available as an option. Had I wanted/needed the extra space, I'd have gone for the Veracruz in a heartbeat. Hyundai has come a L-O-N-G way!
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    Wow! how do you turn that down? That's awesome!

    I Iove the Chicago autoshow. It's the biggest space wise in the US. The McCormic Center is so big you can drive Chrysler's entire line up in the building (!) but the lines so long I wouldn't reccomend it. There is so much to do there. Me, one or two of my brothers, and sometimes my older boys go up for a weekend. The city is awesome, too. Not as fun as LA, but still a lot to do.

    I don't think there will be any new CUVs, really there's a lot less hype to this year's show than last years.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    And a spy in the building? Thats not how Toyota does it (yet it gets done).

    Ummm, you've seen the new Highlander right? It's a joke compared to every other CUV compared in this thread. I'd say that's only my opinion but I'm sure many others agree. I admit I never liked Toyota very much, but they've been slipping big time lately.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    Ford was lazy becuase they couldn't spend time to develop a proper CUV, and now they are paying for it with slow sales.


    Whoa, whoa, whoa there albook. They developed small CUVs first and they are selling well. Their full size CUV comes out later this year and it is based on the same Volvo platform as the TX. The TX is now more or less a space filler until the Flex and next Explorer are on sale at the same time. The TX goes away after those two are in full swing.

    I don't agree that they were lazy, but rather chose a different path. Is GM being lazy because they have no mid-size CUV like the Edge? I do think they are being lazy by offering us 4 iterations of the same thing though. You could argue that the Enclave is different enough to not fit with the other 3 (I'm including the soon to be Chevy version) but it's not it is a night and day difference.

    The lambdas are some of the heaviest vehicles in the class, yet they get some of the best mpg numbers. That's smart engineering.

    Or it's because they have an extra cog in the tranny than some of the others. ;)
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    Give me any example of good engineering from Ford from current years.
    Explorer used same platform for last 20 years.
    Edge - Mazda 5
    Expedition - see Explorer
    F-150 see Explorer
    Focus = Escort
    TX wagon and even worst - using Volvo platform.
    Fusion - Mazda again.
    Oh one engineering V-8 engine for Mustang.
    Even GT went wrong way.

    Wow vad. Not even one right on that list. Unfortunately this is not the place to start that discussion. But I do suggest you do some research before making such blind and incorrect statements.

    One thing I'd like to point out is that you praised the Volvo XC90 several posts back. Now you're knocking the FS/TX for using the same exact platform? :confuse:
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    Though they have greatly dissapointed me lately, I give Ford more credit than that. I like the current F-150- much better than the new one. I strongly dislike the bulky look of both the Explorer and Expedition, but I think the Edge did a decent job. I like the Fusion (yes Mazda) but I have no clue what Ford was thinking about the 500. It doesn't have to be as flashy and good looking as the 300/Charger-not everyone can do that- but it can't even keep up with something like a Lucerne or an Avalon. You look at the car and you can feel the plain, lacklusterness. People rave about how big it is inside, but it's narrow, and the ride isn't great. Changing it to the Taurus and giving it the ugly shaving razor grille was worse, but they gave it a little power. Then of cousre there is the Mustang- the only Ford I would buyright now. I don't think the Challenger and Camaro even measure up to that.

    I look at the Edge, then I look at the TX, and I wonder how could the same company produce these two vehicles.To tell the truth, they are both decent, but the Edge has a real market. You can see where Ford was going with it. And it fits it's segment (competes with Murano and Equinox). But with the TX- especially when it was the FS, there is no efffort at all. They took the already boring 500, and made it a station wagon with a decent third row. Really the package is decent (especially after they gave it some power) but that's not where the market was ever going. We see that in the fate of the Pacifica and R class. But using the Volvo platform was a great move for safety. I'm not totally sure why Ford's getting rid of them.

    Vad- although we don't always totally agree, at least I don't try to falsey complement or befriend you then take badly about you.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    Ummm, you've seen the new Highlander right?

    If you're saying Toyota didn't copy this design, you are probably right. I think Toyota didn't spend anytime on this because they got cocky and said "it's a Toyota. People will buy it!" And it seems to be biting them in the- it seems to be biting them back.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    The TX is now more or less a space filler until the Flex and next Explorer are on sale at the same time. The TX goes away after those two are in full swing.

    Now it is, but in '04, there were no plans for the Flex (the Fairlane don't even exist) and Fors thought the Explorer was fine the way it was. FS wasn't just a spot filler in Ford's garage then.

    Is GM being lazy because they have no mid-size CUV like the Edge?

    The equinox was out years before the Edge. You could say it's outdated, but that's because it's time for a remodel.

    I do think they are being lazy by offering us 4 iterations of the same thing though.

    I am mad at GM for that. But you have to admit at least it's 3 -er- 4 of a good vehicle unlike the G5. Ford has severalofferings like this. Did they really have to clone the Fusion twice?

    Or it's because they have an extra cog in the tranny than some of the others.

    Hey- at least they get the mpgs. And the tranny feels much better now.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    Have you checked out the Volvo XC90?

    I'm not a big fan of the XC. Originally it was nice, but it's a first generation 3 row CUV, and it's age has been showing for a while.
  • barnstormer64barnstormer64 Member Posts: 1,106
    Let's not point out that the TX has no groundclearance

    That's sorta the POINT of a CUV . .. get it closer to the ground so it handles more like a car.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    That's sorta the POINT of a CUV . .. get it closer to the ground so it handles more like a car.

    Definitely not the ppoint of a CUV. CUVsare suppossed to act like an SUV and have it's perks (like ground clearnce). That is the point of a station wagon.
  • freealfasfreealfas Member Posts: 652
    "agree. the acadia big truck. TX is more wagon size, and of course it's lighter. But it's not interferes with driving abilities. I don't have any problems with the quick changing lanes. It has enough power."

    acadia/FS-TreX - both FWD models

    Front track width 67.10/64.6
    Ground clearance 7.40/5.1
    Overall length 200.70/200.1
    Overall width 78.20/74.9
    Overall height, without luggage rack 69.90/68.2
    Rear track width 67.10/65
    Wheelbase 118.90/112.9
    curb weight 4722lbs/3959lbs(FS weight quoted)

    so using your logic and applying a dose of dimensional reality then indeed you and I BOTH are either driving "wagon sized" vehicles or "big truck" like vehicles, which will it be today as I'm more curious than anything?

    based on exterior dimensions your assertion falls on its face, based on weight, I'll take wagon sized every day of the week.
  • jimmy2xjimmy2x Member Posts: 124
    That (Volvo) is something I hadn't even thought about. Heading down to the Philly Auto Show today and will take a look,
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    Like i said before, these two aren't too far off in exterior dimensions. The FS isn't as small a s some claim. The big difference comes in width.

    Based on the interior size of the two, I'd take big truck in a heartbeat.
  • vad1819vad1819 Member Posts: 309
    I'm not knocking Volvo, my point is the ford have not design any new platform for past several years. It's using partner companies car platforms. That's my point. Where GM is at least build something new - Lambda platform.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Ummm, you've seen the new Highlander right? It's a joke compared to every other CUV compared in this thread. I'd say that's only my opinion but I'm sure many others agree. I admit I never liked Toyota very much, but they've been slipping big time lately.

    Actually it's a perfect size for a family of 4 who on occasion need to carpool a couple more kids. Not everyone is looking for the biggest thing out there.
  • vad1819vad1819 Member Posts: 309
    Let's not come back to this argue again. TX and Cadillac SRX is wagon base model.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    hey baggs...I think you're wasting your time responding to that post...just smile and move on ;)
  • vad1819vad1819 Member Posts: 309
    R u taking about me?
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    CUVsare suppossed to act like an SUV and have it's perks (like ground clearnce).
    I don't think so. That's why the call it a CROSSover, because it's a CROSS between a car, SUV and minivan. A CUV is not designed to act like an SUV, but have some general SUV (AWD), some general minivan (space) traits.
  • vad1819vad1819 Member Posts: 309
    CUV - Crossover UTILITY Vehicle. So it should act like utility vehicle at least.
    So TX and SRX are wagons.
  • freealfasfreealfas Member Posts: 652
    did you not look at ANY of the dimensions and still try to contend what you are with a straight face. Again, I asked are we BOTH driving "big trucks" or are we driving "wagon sized" today, 3.3" wider as the biggest single difference in any of the dimension does not lead one to assertion you offer.
  • vad1819vad1819 Member Posts: 309
    I've seen dimensions, but my point CUV is a crossover utility vehicle. TX is "monster jam" wagon and has no use as utility. It can not pull a boat.
  • larryqwlarryqw Member Posts: 52
    I drove both the Saturn Outlook (similar to Acadia) and Ford Taurus X. I felt both handled well and had nice room for six passengers.

    But T-X felt a LOT less big truck-like. It was smaller and closer to the ground, feeling more like a wagon, which is what I was really looking for. The passenger leg room and width of the T-X was about the same as the Outook, yet the outside width is inches less. This makes it easier to maneuver in tight spaces and open the doors in tight parking spots.

    The narrower and shorter Taurus X felt MUCH less truck-like to me, and is the main reason I went for the T-X over the Outlook.
  • freealfasfreealfas Member Posts: 652
    it can pull a boat/trailer, just one that doesn't weigh more than 2k lbs. so yes it does have "utility" if that's your new criteria all are based on now.

    the acadia simply has more, but you cannot argue the TX has none.

    I suspect the majority of the CUV buyers aren't buying them to tow boats. your best and safest bet for a lot of towing is always going to be a BOF SUV.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    Yes, but so is the Pilot and VC. And they at least took the time to include split benches. But I do like the captains and the stow middle seat, though not an industry revolution (how come it can't fold into the floor?) is practical and works. I actually like the new Highlander, but it falls short in too many areas for me.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    No- I beleive SRX has more than 7 inches of groundclearance. The third row isn't really bad, but the bench isn't split. I don't understand what you mean by wagon base model.
  • albookalbook Member Posts: 1,282
    NO- most CUV's have SUV like groundclearance. That's a benefit of having an SUV.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    it's funny how the same poster can say that the TX & Acadia are within a few inches in size, yet te same poster will say one is a wagon and the other a "true" CUV?? So now the definition of CUV is that it can tow a boat...pretty funny :P

    I'm not trying to bash the lambdas. If you need to carry 8, need a large towing capability and large overall interior cargo capability they're good options. But if you don't need all of that large capability, there are a lot of other CUVs to look at, including the TX.
  • mpuzachmpuzach Member Posts: 635
    "I'm not knocking Volvo, my point is the ford have not design any new platform for past several years. It's using partner companies car platforms. That's my point. Where GM is at least build something new - Lambda platform."

    So what? That a vehicle is on a platform shared with other makes or models is irrelevant except to the degree that said platform is or is not a desirable one. Do you even know the meaning of the term "platform" when it's used in this context?
  • freealfasfreealfas Member Posts: 652
    it's like pushing a string trying to add a thoughtful comment to the debate and as you've mentioned before well past the point of dignifying the arguments with response.

    it's one thing to disagree, this just isn't that with the constant and endless moving of the bars, bordering troll-like with most of the recent posts when you go back to read them.

    like you, I've never said the lambda's weren't decent and capable, my biggest and only real gripe has been the weight. I have freely admitted any number of times GM really would have accomplished something much better if they had managed that aspect better simply bringing them in line with the competition as opposed to flying arrogantly in the face of such a major issue with mpg concerns being what they are at this point. A 4200lb lambda would be a much better vehicle on all fronts and could have beat the cx9 to the COY award quite easily.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles