Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Congrats.
You win.
I'm removing this discussion from "My Watched Items," because when it comes to helping readers (and there are LOTS more readers than posters) compare crossovers, this forum fails completely.
I'm out for now.
My advice to everyone is to stop responding to these trolls. Like all attention seekers, they'll go away when they are being ignored.
To keep this post on topic, I'll throw in some positive thoughts, rather than negative ones....
A crossover is a "mutt" in that it is a mixture of different breeds. Two vehicles which may seem different can still both be crossovers as long as they don't fall into the tradition car, truck, minivan category.
When I was shopping for a "family" vehicle, there were so many different choices, which is a good thing. Each vehicle that I looked at had it's strengths and weaknesses. What I had to do was sift through all of them to see which vehicles strengths matched what I was looking for.
In the end, I settled on the TX. The lambdas were a close second. They are fine vehicles in their own right. However there deciding factors were:
1. I found that the TX had a much more sedan-like ride
2. I didn't need 8 passenger capability, so I didn't need the extra space.
3. Pricing on the TX was less than that of the lambdas. It seemed like GM gave you less flexibility in terms of options, whereas the TX allowed you to add most features that I wanted a la carte.
4. TX had much better visibility.
5. TX was Top Safety pick by IIHS. In fairness I don't think the lambdas had been tested, so maybe they'll be just as good.
Anyway, those were my thoughts. Like someone else say, if you need the extra room, the lambdas can't be beat. Since I didnt need the extra space, the TX was fine. I was impressed by the lambdas MPG ratings, though. Considering it is a 5000 pound vehicle, the MPG is pretty darn good, and Ford isn't known for fuel efficiency.
The bottom line is that the TX fit my needs the best. I'm sure every vehicle discussed here fits somebody's needs, so I certainly can't bash anyone for their choice of vehicle (unlike some people on here!).
In closing, I am pleading with everyone to show some civility on here. There are lots of great choices out there, people. I don't think you can go wrong with any of them.
Could not agree more. Spent a good part of today at the Phily Auto Show and saw lots of people that were obviously in love with one vehicle or another. Just because I did not like some of them does not mean that they were a POS - to each his own. Some of us have specific needs that direct us to one over another. Having grown up in an era where many cars really WERE junk, its great too have so many good choices.
Nope . . . if you want that, just get an SUV.
Wagons actually have a lot of utility. QED
Ford has the Escape and the Edge, the former of which is the true competition for the Equinox. They still went in a different direction I say.
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.
The same can be said for the Lambdas. GM was able to get them to market fast because the platform existed overseas. None of the 4 U.S. Lambdas existed in '04 either. Simply put, when the SUV craze died rather abruptly, GM decided to put their large CUVs to market whereas Ford decided to go with their mid-sized CUV first. We have seen Ford's full-size CUV and can buy one in a few months. However, we have not seen any GM competition for the Edge, Murano, etc. Are they planning anything else other than RWD V8 powered cars right now?
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?
True. There are actually 3 Fusions if you count the MKZ. Future plans show that Ford may very well be trying to make Lincoln more of a world brand. What that means for Mercury, I don't know. But they have been leaving Mercury versions out of the mix for things like the Flex, MKS/next Taurus, etc. while making the Lincoln versions look nothing like the Ford versions. GM seems to be doing this with their family sedans right now so both seem to be catching on finally.
Yeah, I know. But the Maker's Mark made me do it! :P
Vad, Volvo is not partnered with Ford. Volvo is a brand within the Ford Motor Company. Mazda is not a partner either. Ford owns a controlling stake in Mazda and therefore makes the decisions for them. Fortunately Volvo and Mazda have some very talented engineers which makes the decision easy as to which parts to use from which division for each vehicle.
Is a space inside, or seating high of the ground, or ability to pull heavy weight, 4 WD or AWD?
My view on this ........ read my posts.
It's not a Ford engineers.
So for past years, the Ford doesn't engineered anything.
While GM has been done outstanding job to make new platform - Lambdas, that the most people hate in this forum.
I've always said the TX and Acadia are close in size. My main point for the TX being a station wagon is the car like groundclearance.
And I say GM has still accomplished something- a large CUV that gets good gas mileage while not sacrificing space. Sure lambdas would be better if they weighed 4200 lbs. The Highlander and VC would be too. As we see (being that these two midsize CUVs can't even wiegh that little) 4200 lbs is unrealistic. There is one vehicle discussed on this forum that is lighter than 4200 lbs. That's your all-star- the Ford Taurus X. It's good that it can accomplish that. But that's because all the TX is is a station wagon (a car- the Ford Taurus) with a raised roof for decent third row space. So GM made do in other areas to produce mpg numbers that are better than some of the smaller competition. And maybe next year GM is planning to take steps to shed a couple hundred lbs. Theres nothing wrong with that. Ford took 3 years to add power to the FS.
No- people want to sit up high. If they didn't, they'd be getting station wagons.
You are somewhat right. GM did intend the Equiox to compete with the Escape, but the Equinox is bigger than even the Edge.And when it's redesigned, that's sqaurely the size Gm's aiming for.
The same can be said for the Lambdas.
No- the lambdas aren't marrked by slow sales, nor are they being replace by a different vehicle.
However, we have not seen any GM competition for the Edge, Murano, etc. Are they planning anything else other than RWD V8 powered cars right now?
I told you already- the Equinox! And when it is redesigned (I believe soon) it will have a third row and should compete sqaurely with the likes of Pilot VC and Highlander, too.
There are actually 3 Fusions if you count the MKZ.
I said they took the ford and cloned it twice. That would mean there are 3 versions. Mercury's future? It's pretty clear that there is none. I'd bet Mercury won't make it to 2012. Is Ford catching on? Barely- not nearly as fast as GM. GM gets it. They have separated their products and brands and don't put wierd unattractive grilles on everything they make. Sorry- back to the topic.
Is a space inside, or seating high of the ground, or ability to pull heavy weight, 4 WD or AWD?
My view on this ........ read my posts.
Sounds like you want an SUV . . so why not just get one?
If you can't see how a wagon has utility, then I can't help you. Hint: compare it to a sedan.
Apparently you've never sat in a Freestyle/Five Hundred (aka, new Taurus and Taurs X) ?
I *do* sit higher in my Freestyle and Five Hundred. I used to own a Taurus and a Taurus wagon (the real Tauri, not the new ones LOL). So, I know first-hand that I'm sitting higher.
I don't need higher ground clearance to do that. And I don't really *want* the ground clearance of an SUV . . . if I wanted that, I'd just get an SUV! I prefer to keep the car closer to the ground, to improve its handling as much as possible. Why on earth do I need extra ground clearance if I'm driving the danged things on the ROADS?
Of course people can cross-shop SUVs and CUVs, but that doesn't change their designation.
One could argue that the lambdas are not CUVs, but simply a unibody SUV, since they don't have any car-like characteristics. The CX-9 handling and driving characteristics make it qualify for the car-like characteristics (probably why it's winning all the CUV awards). But we'll be generous and say that while the lamdas are really nothing more than a unibody SUV, we'll call them a CUV. :P
Exacly like you said, MOST but not ALL CUVs have SUV like ground clearnace. So you're saying that some CUVs do NOT have SUV clearance. The TX is a CUV in the "not ALL" category just like you said
I can say it can be van like or SUV like. Where did you get this statment, that the CUV is car like? I'll rather say van and SUV like.
CUV is something between van and SUV.
this has more than made itself than apparant with the last round of posts before yours and barnstormers. there is simply no arguing, they are right and regardless of the facts or rational arguments otherwise it does not seem to matter. let them play in their sandbox and bask in each others insight into all things automotive as they apparantly seem to have it all figured out regardless of the many opinions and facts proving otherwise.
As for Chrysler they are coming out with the Dodge Journey
http://www.allpar.com/SUVs/dodge/journey.html?gclid=CMjOzsi7qJECFRF7IgodLmfiYQ
as has been seen in the not to distant past around here.
it lists it there with a base 4cylinder engine, wheelbase is only an inch longer than the FS/T-reX so it will be interesting to see how that works out.
nothing really to get actually...
About 5 years ago I was reading magazine, where for first time I read about CUV or crossover. That time they were defined as a station wagons or 5-door hatchbacks with truck-like characteristics such as elevated suspensions and upright seating.(FS, SRX) So, then 5 years later we got CUV's more look like a SUV's. So now it more SUV then station wagon.
A friend had a Montego for a company vehicle, which I sat in many times (and when he ordered his Chevy Uplander, he had the option of a Taurus X- which I did want him to get more than the van). The Volvo XC70 sits higher than a conventional sedan, yet it's not a CUV. And in most CUVs you still get a little more seating height than in a TX.
2009 Dodge Journey Crossover
That statement makes no sense. The Pilot is a CUV. Honda just doesn't call it one because when it arrived on the market SUVs were still popular, and it was developed originally to compete with the likes of the Explorer.
One could argue that the lambdas are not CUVs, but simply a unibody SUV, since they don't have any car-like characteristics.
Except for carlike gas mileage and carlike driving. You just don't consider the lambdas ride as carlike because you drive what is basically a car (the FS).
But we'll be generous and say that while the lamdas are really nothing more than a unibody SUV, we'll call them a CUV.
And even though the TX is a wagon we will let it play because it has third row seating.
That's huge considering the Journey is 8 inches shorter than the FS. So third row room must not be that bad, but I know cargo space is disaml for the three row midsize CUV class.
Huh? MDX is out? And I'm a Charger/Challenger fan, but besides that(and the 300C), Chrysler has completely turned me off.
Is the Flex a good replacement for the TX? I think the toys and gadgets are good fun and all, but I don't think I'd be willing to may 5-10g more for a TX. Also I think Fords new design language (shaving razor grille) may be too strong for some.
Well, we're easy - we could rotate out the Vue or the Acadia.... We only have 9 slots to work with in the topic categories.
Since no two of us can agree on what the definition of a CUV is anyway, we can just remove all of them in the category. :P
buy what YOU like as it's your money. check the tribeca and cx7 forums to see if specific problems/issues from OWNERS that come up consistently and maybe that helps sway one way or the other but short of that buy what you like and enjoy.
the only other advice is to maybe look at all of them if you haven't as there are virtues/shortcomings to all of them but if you have done that and are focused on these, go get the best deal you can and start driving.
That's easy.
If it's clearly not a truck, and clearly not a sedan, and clearly not a minivan, and you want to make it part of the hottest growing market segment so you can sell it, you call it an SUV. :P
I'm not sure I like being thrown into the same sandbox. :P
It's fairly clearl that he wants an SUV . . . he hasn't really shown any reason why he'd rather have a CUV over an SUV. (Maybe he just wants an SUV that's unibody?)
I think it's rather clear, though, why the Freestyle/Five Hundred aren't just normal station wagons and sedans . . . it's that higher seating level.
Basically, I'm going by the "first" definition of a CUV . . . which was something more car-like. Since that time, people have added the SUVs that are unibody rather than body-on-frame as another addition to CUV.
Since mine was one first, I think it's comical that he should try to exlcude it from being called a CUV . . . it would be more rational for ME to say that his isn't a CUV . . which is what I was trying to point out . . . apparently the irony/humor didn't really come across correctly.
I'm just not relpying to those two anymore as there is no debating rationally with them...
good luck
It's not a Ford engineers.
So for past years, the Ford doesn't engineered anything.
Good grief vad!!! Did you read the rest of the post? VOLVO AND MAZDA ENGINEERS WORK FOR FORD MOTOR COMPANY!!! Therefore they ARE Ford engineers. :sick:
You are somewhat right. GM did intend the Equiox to compete with the Escape, but the Equinox is bigger than even the Edge.And when it's redesigned, that's sqaurely the size Gm's aiming for.
Then this:
I told you already- the Equinox! And when it is redesigned (I believe soon) it will have a third row and should compete sqaurely with the likes of Pilot VC and Highlander, too.
So I'm supposed to believe that the next Equinox is going to compete with the Escape, Edge, Pilot, VC, and Highlander? Now that is impressive! GM IS smarter than I thought. I can't wait to see how they pull this off! :P
I don't know why you can't see that Ford has more new small CUVs than GM and GM has more new large CUVs than Ford. That's all I'm saying. Is it that hard to understand?
No- the lambdas aren't marrked by slow sales, nor are they being replace by a different vehicle.
Exactly what can't be said for the Lambdas? I was telling you that the Lambdas didn't exist in 2004 as neither did the Flex. Do you know something we don't?
Look albook, I don't think Ford did the right thing in going with the FS/TX and staying faithful to the Explorer. They probably wish they had put a new large CUV to market sooner like GM did. They chose to put their new small CUVs out first and that's a fact. Why you are arguing against that fact is for you to work out yourself.
Is Ford catching on? Barely- not nearly as fast as GM. GM gets it. They have separated their products and brands and don't put wierd unattractive grilles on everything they make.
Since you're basing that opinion on current product I'll let it go because it is very valid. However, I've seen the future, and it looks bright.
stop the feeding, it's working out quite nicely as it just doesn't matter what any of us say to offer rational response, we'll simply be "wrong" again or they'll twist/turn something around to get the ire up yet again.
Try reading my post...some of each characteristics...car, SUV, minivan
Wrong...just because you call it a CUV doesn't make it so.
baggs...please, you're asking too much
Wow, what a week. We drove the Highlander and Enclave, each for the second time, and the Veracruz and CX9 for the first time. I must say, that they are all wonderful vehicles. Each one had its’ strengths. And depending on the needs of the purchaser, they are all good choices. The comments below describe what we liked about each vehicle as tested. All vehicles are base models priced, from 40-41 K (Canadian). I do not plan on adding many options, as I’m trying to keep the total negotiated price below 45K (including taxes, etc.).
CX9- Best driver of the bunch. For a vehicle this big, it’s as sporty as you can get.
Enclave- Has the most interior room and flexibility. Smoothest ride. Unbelievably quiet. A luxury vehicle.
Highlander- 4WD in base model. Best visibility. Very competent.
Veracruz- Probably second place in almost every category. Nice leather seats. An excellent vehicle overall.
We have come to the conclusion that our choice will be between the CX9, Enclave, and Veracruz. The Highlander, though excellent, does not suit our particular needs as well as the others do. We will not bother to drive any other Crossovers as it is becoming too time consuming, and we feel that any of these three vehicles can meet our needs.
We still have to go back to talk price with each salesman. We will probably drive some of the vehicles again, to fine tune our opinions. If the deals are similar, I think the Enclave has the edge. If we can get a much better deal on the Veracruz or CX9, then it’s still anyone’s game to win.