This is our second Hyundai and the experience with the first was part of what led us to revisit them. There have been a couple references to loopholes in the warranty. Maybe the warranty is structured differently in the U.S. than it is in Canada (I know it's longer), but we had no problem with our first Hyundai. Every little thing I wanted done in the five years after purchase was covered - zero hassle.
And this discussion about "resale". When looking at resale, what many neglect to account for is delta calculations on the initial investment savings. When opting for the VC over some of its competitors we saved ~$5K. Hypothetically, the day I purchased, I could then have thrown that $5K into a conservative investment.
Fast forward eight to ten years when we go to sell the VC. What is that $5K now worth? I'm pretty sure I could have turned that $5K into $10K if not a fair amount more.
So not only does that even the playing field...it tilts it even further in the direction of the vehicle requiring less of a front end investment. And, yes, this was a factor in our decision. Particularly when we felt the vehicle that required less cash outlay was already giving us more than the others on the list.
Somewhat related to resale...the length of time one keeps a vehicle. I have seen some terrific deltas on the fiscal advantages to keeping a vehicle during years six through ten, rather than selling it. And if one puts merit in that, resales on peer vehicles at ten years of age are reduced to marginal differences. Another thing to keep in mind.
I wouldn't worry much about resale, particularly if you go into managing a depreciating asset with eyes wide open.
Because this thread is about comparing these vehicles and the thinking behind owning them, I throw all the above out there. Please know I am NOT blindly allegiant to Hyundai, nor do I care to sell cars for them. And I certainly don't think my choice is the RIGHT one over anybody else's.
Drove 200km through the snow, ice and howling winds yesterday and she performed beautifully! Very happy.
If you pay cash, you should consider the opportunity cost of what else you could have done with the money.
If you get a car loan, just add the difference in interest you pay over the life of the loan. For example on a 5 year loan at 6%, that adds up to an additional $800.
A 6% loan on a vehicle over $30,000 is a heck of a lot more then $800. We are talking the $3000-$5000 range there, unless I missed what you were calculation, which is very possible.
Test drove an Enclave w/Nav today - went off route to see what it would do and it just keep giving directions like I was going how it suggested. Any experience with this. Would like to have backup camera feature w/liitle kids/pets, but not spending money on an expensive Nav if it doesn't reorient. MIght have just been my not knowing how it worked - don't know. Also, would say 'turn in 1/4 mil' but that was it - kind of gave directions like turn left in 1/2 mile but there was no where to turn left. Any owners with experiences/buying advice ? Thanks
We did not get the Nav option as it was part of a $4300 option package. However, the Onstar system gives you turn by turn voice directions. Or you can use a portable nav system. More importantly, after test driving the Enclave, how was it for you? Did it meet your needs?
We have an Enclave with the built it Nav. It re-orients if you deviate from the planned route, but takes about 2/10 mile to figure out you're off course and re-calculate. Not as fast as my VW Touareg, but the Nav has a lot of extra's built into it and the touch screen, address book, favorites, etc. are really nice. I've driven about a half dozen different cars with factory navs through rentals, etc., and my impression is they ALL suffer somewhat with respect to location accuracy when traveling along roadways/ramps in tight proximity to one another. The reality is GPS isn't perfectly accurate, and in fact (check wikipedia), can be off by as much as ~12 meters if all potential error conditions were maxed out.
The Enclave Nav is a little more complicated, but well worth it. Multiple display formats, bigger screen than an aftermarket, the backup cam is great, etc. You won't be disappointed. This is the first time I've ever seen my wife excited to learn how to use a piece of technology.
I agree that the Lambdas are the closest thing to a minivan replacement, but only for people who truly hate the look of a minivan, not the convenience. As far as third row, the Acadia's is spacious, but not the most comfortable--I found the seat to be hard and low to the floor.
No- the lambdas are the best minivan replacements handsdown, as they have almost the passenger and cargo capacity and comfort. It's just that not everyone wants the room ( possibly why they don't get a minivan). And the lambda's 3rd row seat height is just as high, or higher than all of it's competitors. The closest rival of third row comfort is the TX. None of the other competitors come close for comfort.
And now the good stuff: I think GM should give the direct injection to the Chevy Traverse for a whole year before passing it on to the rest of the clan. They should also tune the Traverse to be sporty, like the CX-9, as this would really differentiate the Traverse, and possibly steal sales away from the CX-9, so its win-win for Chevy. Then in 2010 they could bring the engine to the other Lambdas.
Why? Traverse is bottom of the lambda line. If anything, it shouldn't get the new engine. And the Outlook should be the sporty one. As for stealing CX-9 sales, there aren't that many to steal.
As for stealing CX-9 sales, there aren't that many to steal.
Sounds like a cheap shot at Mazda if you ask me. Mazda will never sell more CX-9's then GM will of any of it's lambdas. First off, Mazda does not manufacturer nearly as many CX's as GM does of any of it's equivalents. You are comparing the second largest automaker in the world, volume wise, the the 4th largest out of Japan. GM is waaaaaay bigger then Mazda, and has more 10 times the manufacturing capabilities. Lets look at this from another class of vehicle these two companies produce. The Chevy sold nearly 200,000 Cobalt's in 2007 and Mazda sold 120,000 Mazda3's. Same class of car. Sales do not always dictate the better car.
BTY, Mazda is not complaining about their sales of the CX-9. It is right on par with the CX-7 sales when it came out, and the CX-7 sales keep increasing. Mazda sold over 25,000 CX-9's last year, I know not much compared to GM, but, 95% of those new CX-9 owners were not in a Mazda before, so, Mazda stole them from somewhere...
I would go with the Enclave, Acadia or Traverse. Avoid the Veracruz by all means.
I won't give you too much slack (as so many others already have) but simply say that the VC is a great vehicle. It isn't a nice try, or an almost. It competes directly, and is just as good as a Highlander or Pilot or any other vehicle in its class. The lambdas are great vehicles, and a knockout by GM, but they aren't for everyone. And the Traverse isn't a better value than the Enclave, because the Buick is near luxury, and has a lot of stuff you can't get on the Chevy. And it looks better.
However I think you and I agree that it does carry over certain key design cues from said Uplander and that was the original point.
I agree completely. But what I'm saying now is yes, they look a bit similar-that's Chevy's new design language (works on the Malibu- not the Uplander). But the Traverse is still a great looking CUV. And the rear looks as if they tried something a bit Camaro.
And the rear looks as if they tried something a bit Camaro.
Now that would be a huge mistake IMO. I can hear the critics now. "The new Camaro is great looking until you get to the Chevy Traverse tail lights. What were the designers thinking putting CUV taillights on a sports car?" :P
The best replacement for a minivan is another minivan.
That's actually an excellent point IMO. No matter what you buy, if it's not a minivan it's not a minivan. The Lambdas are close but they are not replacements. "Compromise" is definitely a better word.
Well it's obvious you're a diehard Lambda fanboy, so I won't bother trying to argue that a Lambda is not the same in comfort as a minivan (or even in the 3rd row of a Veracruz or CX-9), it'll waste both our somewhat valuable time.
Instead, I'll point out how wrong you likely are about the Traverse: (1) The Saturn Outlook is not selling all that well. Sales were way down in January, while Acadia sales were flat. Not a good sign for Saturn. (2) Chevy will eat up Saturn sales, since it'll be more "budget-minded", and especially since people can haggle with Chevy. Chevy has a better name and tradition than Saturn; I'd personally buy a Chevy any day over a Saturn, and I think a lot of GM followers think that way too (might be why the GMC sells better). (3) The Traverse looks sportier than the Saturn, with lines that look more aggressive, especially the nice back end and the tail-lights. The Saturn looks more angular in comparison.
With all that in mind, there's no reason not to put a nicer engine in the Traverse and try to revive the Chevy brand along with it. The Malibu and Traverse could nicely complement each other, I don't see any reason why GM should put a DI engine into the sinking ship that Saturn is.
The best replacement for a minivan is another minivan.
That's actually an excellent point IMO. No matter what you buy, if it's not a minivan it's not a minivan. The Lambdas are close but they are not replacements. "Compromise" is definitely a better word.
Good point. Buying the Enclave was a compromise in many ways. I probably will think twice before throwing in some bags of cement or building materials, that I routinely threw in a minivan. I'll probably think twice before parking too close to someone else in a parking lot for fear of getting door dings. I'll probably try to avoid gravel roads to avoid stone chips. And I'll probably take better care of it, because I paid a lot more for it than any minivan I ever owned. However, it is a compromise I am willing to live with.
Regarding some recent Veracruz and CX9 comments: Both of these vehicles have taken a few “shots” lately. Even though I eventually decided on the Enclave, I would not hesitate to recommend either of these vehicles to a close friend. I would not be worried about their reliability. As for their resale value, if you plan on holding them for over 6 years, resale probably doesn’t matter.
I probably will think twice before throwing in some bags of cement or building materials, that I routinely threw in a minivan. I'll probably think twice before parking too close to someone else in a parking lot for fear of getting door dings. I'll probably try to avoid gravel roads to avoid stone chips. And I'll probably take better care of it, because I paid a lot more for it than any minivan I ever owned. However, it is a compromise I am willing to live with.
I can't say I do it any differently to be honest with you. I have no problem getting door dings, throwing cement in the back of, or avoiding gravel roads in our Explorer but I probably would if driving one of these nice new CUVs. Mostly, as you stated, because of the cost.
Personally, I think the Traverse is a really nice looking vehicle. I like it better then the Outlook. From the pictures, Chevy seems to have stepped up their game, big time. Would I buy one yet? No. I think I have to agree with you that the majority of GM buyers will buy a Chevy over a Saturn. Saturn has always had an image of an inexpensive, affordable small car. Then they go and introduce a $40,000 SUV. I remember people saying "I'm not paying that kind of money for a Saturn!" Come to think about it, I heard some of that too when it came to the CX-9. "$40,000 for a Mazda? Does it have a rotary?"
(1) The Saturn Outlook is not selling all that well. Sales were way down in January, while Acadia sales were flat. Not a good sign for Saturn. (2) Chevy will eat up Saturn sales, since it'll be more "budget-minded", and especially since people can haggle with Chevy. Chevy has a better name and tradition than Saturn; I'd personally buy a Chevy any day over a Saturn, and I think a lot of GM followers think that way too (might be why the GMC sells better).
GMC sells better because there are a whole lot more GMC dealerships than Saturn. It is like comparing BMW with MINI. I see a lot of Saturns in areas where there is a dealer nearby but almost none where there is not. I don't think it is a coincidence.
So far as Saturn goes, my take is that a lot of Americans SAY they want the no-haggle price policy, but reading one of the well-know Acadia message boards would say otherwise. Many folks think that they can get a better deal at GMC and my own cursory research would seem to confirm this. This is especially true if you are not trading in a car.
I also think that is true that a lot of Americans from other cultures would not even think of making this type of purchase without haggling. It has been a part of their culture for many years and from my own experience is not something that is easily overcome.
Personally if we were to decide we wanted an Acadia or one of the other Lambdas I'd shop all of them and buy the one I could get the best deal on. They are too similar inside and out (size on the outside, not the sheet metal) for me to bother with one or the other. I like the way all 4 of them look so it definitely boils down to price for me.
GMC sells better because there are a whole lot more GMC dealerships than Saturn. It is like comparing BMW with MINI.
Comparing GMC and Saturn to BMW and MINI is a a very long stretch. There is only one car that MINI makes. There is no BMW equivalent. GMC and Saturn share a vehicle, Outlook and Acadia. It is true, Saturn is struggling. GMC has had an established name when it comes to SUV's or any large vehicle. Saturn does not. GM is trying to recreate the Saturn image. Is it working? Only time will tell.
Mazda recreated their image back in 2003. It has worked wonderfully so far.
Personally, I think the Traverse is a really nice looking vehicle. I like it better then the Outlook. From the pictures, Chevy seems to have stepped up their game, big time. Would I buy one yet? No. I think I have to agree with you that the majority of GM buyers will buy a Chevy over a Saturn. Saturn has always had an image of an inexpensive, affordable small car. Then they go and introduce a $40,000 SUV. I remember people saying "I'm not paying that kind of money for a Saturn!" Come to think about it, I heard some of that too when it came to the CX-9. "$40,000 for a Mazda? Does it have a rotary?"
I think the Traverse is nice looking as well. It is different from GMs other offerings, but still unmistakeable as a "crossover" type of vehicle. The front end reminds me somewhat of an Acura MDX, another nice looking vehicle.
The Traverse will probably take some sales away from Acadia, Enclave Outlook, but probably most from the Outlook as they are closest in price. I suspect that Traverse will also take a few sales away from Hyundai VC.
I see a lot of Acadias and Enclaves in my area compared to Outlooks, because we have no Saturn dealer in town. Saturn sales will always be lower as a result of fewer dealerships. There isn't a Volvo or Subaru dealer near me either, so I don't see a lot of those vehicles in town.
To me it's all the same...GM wastes money on four divisions, same truck. Pick one and feature it differently for different price points. In fact, they could even change the sheet metal...just get the customers to come into one place and stop cross competition in the came company. But what do I really know.
I really if GM has learned its lesson on how to build a quality vehicle that is badged in many of its divisions, such as the lambdas. We are looking at 4 versions of essentially the same vehicle. In recent memory, GM produced the Saab 9-7x, Trailblazer, Envoy, Ascender, Bravada and Rainier. All the same car. None have or had a good reputation. Common, 6 versions? I wonder how many Lambdas GM will build. Is Pontiac next?
I'm not trying to bash GM, but, seriously, when they do things like this, it does not turn out so well.
Having different divisions is fine as long as they fulfil different missions. Luxury division, near-luxury division, vanilla division, performance division, etc... The problem with the GM divisions is that there is little differentiation between the divisions. Caddy is the luxury division, Buick is the near luxury division, the rest are a mish-mash of ideas and identities. That is not a good thing.
"Mazda recreated their image back in 2003. It has worked wonderfully so far."
I'm not sure about it. I'm still take any Nissan sedan over Mazda, even i'm not a big fan both these manufactures. I will take Murano over CX-7. I'm still remember trans. from Mazda, that was installed on Ford vehicles. What is a p... of crap!!!
Yes, it's true. I've always thought that GMC near luxury division, because Sierra has better interior, better to say more expensive interior, than Silverado.
Mazda is the fastest growing car company, in terms of sales percentages year over year, in America. Whether you personally would buy one or not does not constitute how well it is doing.
heard some of that too when it came to the CX-9. "$40,000 for a Mazda? Does it have a rotary?"
It's funny that people should think that since $40k is about the price of a loaded Highlander or Pilot, which are both smaller than the Mazda.
Of course, Honda and Toyota have had years to cement their reputation, so people might just expect it to be normal to pay up to $40k for a Highlander/Pilot. Mazda isn't put on the same pedestal as its Japanese cousins for some reason.
The CX-9 is a much nicer vehicle, in my book--which is why we bought one. I still can't believe how well it carves through corners!
It's funny that people should think that since $40k is about the price of a loaded Highlander or Pilot, which are both smaller than the Mazda.
Of course, Honda and Toyota have had years to cement their reputation, so people might just expect it to be normal to pay up to $40k for a Highlander/Pilot. Mazda isn't put on the same pedestal as its Japanese cousins for some reason.
A loaded Pilot is $35k and change, for those readers who don't know. A Mazda CX-9 loaded (which is better equipped than the Pilot I think) is $42k if you don't include things like wheel locks, all-weather mats, moonroof deflectors - things that are dealer installed on the Pilot.
A loaded Pilot is $35k and change, for those readers who don't know. A Mazda CX-9 loaded (which is better equipped than the Pilot I think) is $42k if you don't include things like wheel locks, all-weather mats, moonroof deflectors - things that are dealer installed on the Pilot.
Officially the top Pilot is $36,280 after destination. You'd have to add a heck of a lot more dealer installed options to the Pilot than all-weather mats, wind deflectors and wheel locks to bring it to the same equipment level as a loaded CX-9. Several of which are not even offered as dealer accessories actually.
The Pilot is a nice vehicle and a pretty good value these days. However these new CUVs have many features which take them to another level that the Pilot just can't play on. Hence the new prices too.
One man's treasure is another man's trash. To me, neither vehicle is a perfect blend, but both are good overall. They just cater to different audiences in my opinion.
I should have made myself clearer: I was quoting prices for the new redesigned 2008 Highlander and the upcoming 2009 Pilot. The new Pilot is expected to have a pricing range of $28k to $40k, from the sites I have read, so basically similar to the new Highlander and the CX-9.
Indeed, the Pilot is behind on features, but when comparably equipped with others, its an very good value.
Well, yes and no. It's actually very hard to equip the other newer CUVs like a loaded Pilot because the others come with a good bit more standard on each trim. You almost always have to start with the base "other" and add things from there. When you do that the Pilot isn't such a good value anymore.
Either way, ya get my point. The Pilot undercuts others' prices at this stage.
I'm not so sure about that. It's a good value, and I believe I also included the word "now", because you can get a good deal on one. I think if you were to option a newer CUV the same way as a Pilot, which I feel is hard to do, you would probably end up pretty close in price. If I have time I'll try it.
*edit*
OK, the kids went to bed. I tried it out with an Acadia and a CX-9 and it is impossible to equip them like a loaded Pilot because GMC and Mazda make you add too many additional options to get the NAV, DVD system, and one or two others. A base CX-9 Touring seems to compare well to the Pilot EX-L after you add a moonroof to the former. Mazda makes you get the, IMO, garbage BOSE stereo with the moonroof so take that off and they are within $100 of each other.
The Pilot is a more rugged version of the Odyssey (a large, 8 passenger vehicle). The Taurus X is a more rugged (and voluminous) version of the Taurus sedan.
Both are CUVs, but seem to be at opposite ends of the specturm, from styling to seating.
Try truedelta.com. It adjusts for missing features between two cars.
I compared the Honda EX-L with the CX-9 GT, both in AWD. The site calculates the CX-9 has $2500 extra in features not available on the Honda. Taking all that into account, the Honda is really only $1600 cheaper (based on MSRP alone, the Honda would be $4k cheaper).
I did the same thing with top of the line Acadia (with 19" rims) and Honda. It calculates the Acadia has $3500 in extra features, but in the end is still $3400 more expensive (based on MSRP alone, the Acadia would be $7400 more expensive).
For fun I compared the Acadia and CX-9, both loaded. When adjusted for features, the CX-9 comes out $1500 cheaper (based on MSRP, the Acadia is $2500 more expensive).
ironically your perceptions are opposite of the actual capabilities, the T-reX will carry 7 more comfortably and with a decent amount of stuff behind a 3rd row, the pilot won't.
nothing opposit end about them in reality as they are aimed at the same market. styling is conservative for both, but comfort and value wins go to the T-reX when you run the numbers.
Try truedelta.com. It adjusts for missing features between two cars.
I compared the Honda EX-L with the CX-9 GT, both in AWD. The site calculates the CX-9 has $2500 extra in features not available on the Honda. Taking all that into account, the Honda is really only $1600 cheaper (based on MSRP alone, the Honda would be $4k cheaper).
I tried it and it showed me exactly what I stated before. A comparably equipped CX-9 Touring is only a few hundred dollars more than a comparably equipped Pilot EX-L. According to that site and my own research those are really the only two trims you can compare with these two vehicles. Try it any other way and the Mazda is always going to have a lot more features (read creature comforts), and cost more because of those and due to Mazda's option requirements if you have to add options like DVD systems, moonroof, etc. Your comparision is a bit flawed IMO because a CX-9 GT is just not comparable to a Pilot EX-L when I look at it. The former has way too much more going for it than the Pilot feature-wise. The smart key alone is probably worth a grand or two.
GMC is even worse than Mazda with their options I guess. That site tells me that the only comparable trims of the Acadia and the Pilot are the lowly Acadia SLE and the Pilot EX. The Pilot is cheaper and appears to come with quite a bit more than the Acadia in this comparision. So it's still not necessarily a fair comparision but the Pilot does come out as the clear winner in terms of value on this one. Step up to the Acadia SLT and then the Pilot EX-L is the closest match. The price difference is roughly $3000 now and the Acadia wins on features. Whether those features are worth $3000 more is up to the buyer. Personally I don't think they are. I'd rather have the $3000 worth of features from the CX-9 GT if I were going to take that plunge as it looks to me that the CX-9 gives more bang for the buck. Like the aforementioned smart key, electroluminescent gagues, etc. Little things for sure, but better IMO.
Thanks for that link though. It does make it a lot easier to do this.
I test drove both an Enclave and an Outlook, and the Enclave seemed quieter to me. The Enclave is definitely quieter than my RX350. My main problems with the Enclave were the rather sluggish acceleration and uncomfortable seats.
Your comparision is a bit flawed IMO because a CX-9 GT is just not comparable to a Pilot EX-L when I look at it.
I agree, but someone has mentioned comparing the highest trim levels possible. So even when you take the highest trim CX-9, and factor in all the options you're getting that are not available on the Pilot, the CX-9 is only $1600 more expensive.
A Mazda CX-9 loaded (which is better equipped than the Pilot I think) is $42k
The CX-9 does not reach $42K with out adding port installed, or dealer installed accessories or options. If you price one out using factory offered options, it reaches just over $41K. A CX-9 AWD Grand Touring starts at $34,655. Add the Blind Spot Monitoring system ($200), rear seat entertainment system w/ Bose Audio ($2,560), towing package ($525), and Grand Touring Assistance package ($2,500). Then add the destination charge of $635, you get $41,075. Those are the only package options you can get. There is an abundance of accessories and other "creature comforts" you can add, just like every other manufacturer offers, that can be installed by the dealer.
According to Hondas website, the Pilot costs $39,779 when equipped with the DVD entertainment system, tow package, navigation and rear back up sensors. This is as closely equipped to the CX-9 as I could possibly get. This is a difference of $1,296. Considering that the CX-9 is up to date in technology, size and power, and the Pilot is not, the $1,200 difference is quite minimal.
Too big of a lumbar bulge in the front seats, even with the adjustment set to minimum. Also, I thought the "4 way" front passenger seat needed to be an "8 way".
FWIW, I also test drove a CX9, and I thought the front seats were extremely comfortable, and the design of the rear two rows of seats seemed to be very well thought out.
Comments
Two things I'd like to mention...
This is our second Hyundai and the experience with the first was part of what led us to revisit them. There have been a couple references to loopholes in the warranty. Maybe the warranty is structured differently in the U.S. than it is in Canada (I know it's longer), but we had no problem with our first Hyundai. Every little thing I wanted done in the five years after purchase was covered - zero hassle.
And this discussion about "resale". When looking at resale, what many neglect to account for is delta calculations on the initial investment savings. When opting for the VC over some of its competitors we saved ~$5K. Hypothetically, the day I purchased, I could then have thrown that $5K into a conservative investment.
Fast forward eight to ten years when we go to sell the VC. What is that $5K now worth? I'm pretty sure I could have turned that $5K into $10K if not a fair amount more.
So not only does that even the playing field...it tilts it even further in the direction of the vehicle requiring less of a front end investment. And, yes, this was a factor in our decision. Particularly when we felt the vehicle that required less cash outlay was already giving us more than the others on the list.
Somewhat related to resale...the length of time one keeps a vehicle. I have seen some terrific deltas on the fiscal advantages to keeping a vehicle during years six through ten, rather than selling it. And if one puts merit in that, resales on peer vehicles at ten years of age are reduced to marginal differences. Another thing to keep in mind.
I wouldn't worry much about resale, particularly if you go into managing a depreciating asset with eyes wide open.
Because this thread is about comparing these vehicles and the thinking behind owning them, I throw all the above out there. Please know I am NOT blindly allegiant to Hyundai, nor do I care to sell cars for them. And I certainly don't think my choice is the RIGHT one over anybody else's.
Drove 200km through the snow, ice and howling winds yesterday and she performed beautifully! Very happy.
If you pay cash, you should consider the opportunity cost of what else you could have done with the money.
If you get a car loan, just add the difference in interest you pay over the life of the loan. For example on a 5 year loan at 6%, that adds up to an additional $800.
To put it more simply, that $5000 extra will actually cost you $5800 extra.
So if you estimate resale values, add $5800 to the Veracruz, assuming you do find a $5000 price advantage, of course.
We did not get the Nav option as it was part of a $4300 option package. However, the Onstar system gives you turn by turn voice directions. Or you can use a portable nav system.
More importantly, after test driving the Enclave, how was it for you? Did it meet your needs?
We have an Enclave with the built it Nav. It re-orients if you deviate from the planned route, but takes about 2/10 mile to figure out you're off course and re-calculate. Not as fast as my VW Touareg, but the Nav has a lot of extra's built into it and the touch screen, address book, favorites, etc. are really nice. I've driven about a half dozen different cars with factory navs through rentals, etc., and my impression is they ALL suffer somewhat with respect to location accuracy when traveling along roadways/ramps in tight proximity to one another. The reality is GPS isn't perfectly accurate, and in fact (check wikipedia), can be off by as much as ~12 meters if all potential error conditions were maxed out.
The Enclave Nav is a little more complicated, but well worth it. Multiple display formats, bigger screen than an aftermarket, the backup cam is great, etc. You won't be disappointed. This is the first time I've ever seen my wife excited to learn how to use a piece of technology.
No- the lambdas are the best minivan replacements handsdown, as they have almost the passenger and cargo capacity and comfort. It's just that not everyone wants the room ( possibly why they don't get a minivan). And the lambda's 3rd row seat height is just as high, or higher than all of it's competitors. The closest rival of third row comfort is the TX. None of the other competitors come close for comfort.
And now the good stuff: I think GM should give the direct injection to the Chevy Traverse for a whole year before passing it on to the rest of the clan. They should also tune the Traverse to be sporty, like the CX-9, as this would really differentiate the Traverse, and possibly steal sales away from the CX-9, so its win-win for Chevy. Then in 2010 they could bring the engine to the other Lambdas.
Why? Traverse is bottom of the lambda line. If anything, it shouldn't get the new engine. And the Outlook should be the sporty one. As for stealing CX-9 sales, there aren't that many to steal.
Sounds like a cheap shot at Mazda if you ask me. Mazda will never sell more CX-9's then GM will of any of it's lambdas. First off, Mazda does not manufacturer nearly as many CX's as GM does of any of it's equivalents. You are comparing the second largest automaker in the world, volume wise, the the 4th largest out of Japan. GM is waaaaaay bigger then Mazda, and has more 10 times the manufacturing capabilities. Lets look at this from another class of vehicle these two companies produce. The Chevy sold nearly 200,000 Cobalt's in 2007 and Mazda sold 120,000 Mazda3's. Same class of car. Sales do not always dictate the better car.
BTY, Mazda is not complaining about their sales of the CX-9. It is right on par with the CX-7 sales when it came out, and the CX-7 sales keep increasing. Mazda sold over 25,000 CX-9's last year, I know not much compared to GM, but, 95% of those new CX-9 owners were not in a Mazda before, so, Mazda stole them from somewhere...
I won't give you too much slack (as so many others already have) but simply say that the VC is a great vehicle. It isn't a nice try, or an almost. It competes directly, and is just as good as a Highlander or Pilot or any other vehicle in its class. The lambdas are great vehicles, and a knockout by GM, but they aren't for everyone. And the Traverse isn't a better value than the Enclave, because the Buick is near luxury, and has a lot of stuff you can't get on the Chevy. And it looks better.
I agree completely. But what I'm saying now is yes, they look a bit similar-that's Chevy's new design language (works on the Malibu- not the Uplander). But the Traverse is still a great looking CUV. And the rear looks as if they tried something a bit Camaro.
The best replacement for a minivan is another minivan.
Sorry, I just had to chime in.
Any crossover will compromise space for passengers and cargo plus you would lose the convenience of automatic doors.
At least the CX-9 is selling better, and receiving more accolades than the Veracruz. :P .
Now that would be a huge mistake IMO. I can hear the critics now. "The new Camaro is great looking until you get to the Chevy Traverse tail lights. What were the designers thinking putting CUV taillights on a sports car?" :P
That's actually an excellent point IMO. No matter what you buy, if it's not a minivan it's not a minivan. The Lambdas are close but they are not replacements. "Compromise" is definitely a better word.
Instead, I'll point out how wrong you likely are about the Traverse:
(1) The Saturn Outlook is not selling all that well. Sales were way down in January, while Acadia sales were flat. Not a good sign for Saturn.
(2) Chevy will eat up Saturn sales, since it'll be more "budget-minded", and especially since people can haggle with Chevy. Chevy has a better name and tradition than Saturn; I'd personally buy a Chevy any day over a Saturn, and I think a lot of GM followers think that way too (might be why the GMC sells better).
(3) The Traverse looks sportier than the Saturn, with lines that look more aggressive, especially the nice back end and the tail-lights. The Saturn looks more angular in comparison.
With all that in mind, there's no reason not to put a nicer engine in the Traverse and try to revive the Chevy brand along with it. The Malibu and Traverse could nicely complement each other, I don't see any reason why GM should put a DI engine into the sinking ship that Saturn is.
That's actually an excellent point IMO. No matter what you buy, if it's not a minivan it's not a minivan. The Lambdas are close but they are not replacements. "Compromise" is definitely a better word.
Good point. Buying the Enclave was a compromise in many ways. I probably will think twice before throwing in some bags of cement or building materials, that I routinely threw in a minivan. I'll probably think twice before parking too close to someone else in a parking lot for fear of getting door dings. I'll probably try to avoid gravel roads to avoid stone chips. And I'll probably take better care of it, because I paid a lot more for it than any minivan I ever owned. However, it is a compromise I am willing to live with.
Regarding some recent Veracruz and CX9 comments: Both of these vehicles have taken a few “shots” lately. Even though I eventually decided on the Enclave, I would not hesitate to recommend either of these vehicles to a close friend. I would not be worried about their reliability. As for their resale value, if you plan on holding them for over 6 years, resale probably doesn’t matter.
I can't say I do it any differently to be honest with you. I have no problem getting door dings, throwing cement in the back of, or avoiding gravel roads in our Explorer but I probably would if driving one of these nice new CUVs. Mostly, as you stated, because of the cost.
(2) Chevy will eat up Saturn sales, since it'll be more "budget-minded", and especially since people can haggle with Chevy. Chevy has a better name and tradition than Saturn; I'd personally buy a Chevy any day over a Saturn, and I think a lot of GM followers think that way too (might be why the GMC sells better).
GMC sells better because there are a whole lot more GMC dealerships than Saturn. It is like comparing BMW with MINI. I see a lot of Saturns in areas where there is a dealer nearby but almost none where there is not. I don't think it is a coincidence.
I also think that is true that a lot of Americans from other cultures would not even think of making this type of purchase without haggling. It has been a part of their culture for many years and from my own experience is not something that is easily overcome.
Comparing GMC and Saturn to BMW and MINI is a a very long stretch. There is only one car that MINI makes. There is no BMW equivalent. GMC and Saturn share a vehicle, Outlook and Acadia. It is true, Saturn is struggling. GMC has had an established name when it comes to SUV's or any large vehicle. Saturn does not. GM is trying to recreate the Saturn image. Is it working? Only time will tell.
Mazda recreated their image back in 2003. It has worked wonderfully so far.
I think the Traverse is nice looking as well. It is different from GMs other offerings, but still unmistakeable as a "crossover" type of vehicle. The front end reminds me somewhat of an Acura MDX, another nice looking vehicle.
The Traverse will probably take some sales away from Acadia, Enclave Outlook, but probably most from the Outlook as they are closest in price. I suspect that Traverse will also take a few sales away from Hyundai VC.
I see a lot of Acadias and Enclaves in my area compared to Outlooks, because we have no Saturn dealer in town. Saturn sales will always be lower as a result of fewer dealerships. There isn't a Volvo or Subaru dealer near me either, so I don't see a lot of those vehicles in town.
Regards,
OW
I'm not trying to bash GM, but, seriously, when they do things like this, it does not turn out so well.
I'm not sure about it. I'm still take any Nissan sedan over Mazda, even i'm not a big fan both these manufactures. I will take Murano over CX-7. I'm still remember trans. from Mazda, that was installed on Ford vehicles. What is a p... of crap!!!
It's funny that people should think that since $40k is about the price of a loaded Highlander or Pilot, which are both smaller than the Mazda.
Of course, Honda and Toyota have had years to cement their reputation, so people might just expect it to be normal to pay up to $40k for a Highlander/Pilot. Mazda isn't put on the same pedestal as its Japanese cousins for some reason.
The CX-9 is a much nicer vehicle, in my book--which is why we bought one. I still can't believe how well it carves through corners!
Of course, Honda and Toyota have had years to cement their reputation, so people might just expect it to be normal to pay up to $40k for a Highlander/Pilot. Mazda isn't put on the same pedestal as its Japanese cousins for some reason.
A loaded Pilot is $35k and change, for those readers who don't know. A Mazda CX-9 loaded (which is better equipped than the Pilot I think) is $42k if you don't include things like wheel locks, all-weather mats, moonroof deflectors - things that are dealer installed on the Pilot.
Officially the top Pilot is $36,280 after destination. You'd have to add a heck of a lot more dealer installed options to the Pilot than all-weather mats, wind deflectors and wheel locks to bring it to the same equipment level as a loaded CX-9. Several of which are not even offered as dealer accessories actually.
The Pilot is a nice vehicle and a pretty good value these days. However these new CUVs have many features which take them to another level that the Pilot just can't play on. Hence the new prices too.
And, I didn't include destination on either vehicle, did I? Either way, ya get my point. The Pilot undercuts others' prices at this stage.
One man's treasure is another man's trash. To me, neither vehicle is a perfect blend, but both are good overall. They just cater to different audiences in my opinion.
I should have made myself clearer: I was quoting prices for the new redesigned 2008 Highlander and the upcoming 2009 Pilot. The new Pilot is expected to have a pricing range of $28k to $40k, from the sites I have read, so basically similar to the new Highlander and the CX-9.
But yes, the current Pilot tops out near $36k.
how so?
Well, yes and no. It's actually very hard to equip the other newer CUVs like a loaded Pilot because the others come with a good bit more standard on each trim. You almost always have to start with the base "other" and add things from there. When you do that the Pilot isn't such a good value anymore.
Either way, ya get my point. The Pilot undercuts others' prices at this stage.
I'm not so sure about that. It's a good value, and I believe I also included the word "now", because you can get a good deal on one. I think if you were to option a newer CUV the same way as a Pilot, which I feel is hard to do, you would probably end up pretty close in price. If I have time I'll try it.
*edit*
OK, the kids went to bed. I tried it out with an Acadia and a CX-9 and it is impossible to equip them like a loaded Pilot because GMC and Mazda make you add too many additional options to get the NAV, DVD system, and one or two others. A base CX-9 Touring seems to compare well to the Pilot EX-L after you add a moonroof to the former. Mazda makes you get the, IMO, garbage BOSE stereo with the moonroof so take that off and they are within $100 of each other.
Both are CUVs, but seem to be at opposite ends of the specturm, from styling to seating.
I compared the Honda EX-L with the CX-9 GT, both in AWD. The site calculates the CX-9 has $2500 extra in features not available on the Honda. Taking all that into account, the Honda is really only $1600 cheaper (based on MSRP alone, the Honda would be $4k cheaper).
I did the same thing with top of the line Acadia (with 19" rims) and Honda. It calculates the Acadia has $3500 in extra features, but in the end is still $3400 more expensive (based on MSRP alone, the Acadia would be $7400 more expensive).
For fun I compared the Acadia and CX-9, both loaded. When adjusted for features, the CX-9 comes out $1500 cheaper (based on MSRP, the Acadia is $2500 more expensive).
nothing opposit end about them in reality as they are aimed at the same market. styling is conservative for both, but comfort and value wins go to the T-reX when you run the numbers.
seems the spectrum needs an adjustment...
Now that's what I'm talkin' about! My wive never carves and it's very difficult for me when I'm driving to even slice lightly through the esses!.
I guess she'll pick the Enclave since it is the Looker of the Lambdas!
Regards,
OW
I compared the Honda EX-L with the CX-9 GT, both in AWD. The site calculates the CX-9 has $2500 extra in features not available on the Honda. Taking all that into account, the Honda is really only $1600 cheaper (based on MSRP alone, the Honda would be $4k cheaper).
I tried it and it showed me exactly what I stated before. A comparably equipped CX-9 Touring is only a few hundred dollars more than a comparably equipped Pilot EX-L. According to that site and my own research those are really the only two trims you can compare with these two vehicles. Try it any other way and the Mazda is always going to have a lot more features (read creature comforts), and cost more because of those and due to Mazda's option requirements if you have to add options like DVD systems, moonroof, etc. Your comparision is a bit flawed IMO because a CX-9 GT is just not comparable to a Pilot EX-L when I look at it. The former has way too much more going for it than the Pilot feature-wise. The smart key alone is probably worth a grand or two.
GMC is even worse than Mazda with their options I guess. That site tells me that the only comparable trims of the Acadia and the Pilot are the lowly Acadia SLE and the Pilot EX. The Pilot is cheaper and appears to come with quite a bit more than the Acadia in this comparision. So it's still not necessarily a fair comparision but the Pilot does come out as the clear winner in terms of value on this one. Step up to the Acadia SLT and then the Pilot EX-L is the closest match. The price difference is roughly $3000 now and the Acadia wins on features. Whether those features are worth $3000 more is up to the buyer. Personally I don't think they are. I'd rather have the $3000 worth of features from the CX-9 GT if I were going to take that plunge as it looks to me that the CX-9 gives more bang for the buck. Like the aforementioned smart key, electroluminescent gagues, etc. Little things for sure, but better IMO.
Thanks for that link though. It does make it a lot easier to do this.
I agree, but someone has mentioned comparing the highest trim levels possible. So even when you take the highest trim CX-9, and factor in all the options you're getting that are not available on the Pilot, the CX-9 is only $1600 more expensive.
Front or rear?
The CX-9 does not reach $42K with out adding port installed, or dealer installed accessories or options. If you price one out using factory offered options, it reaches just over $41K. A CX-9 AWD Grand Touring starts at $34,655. Add the Blind Spot Monitoring system ($200), rear seat entertainment system w/ Bose Audio ($2,560), towing package ($525), and Grand Touring Assistance package ($2,500). Then add the destination charge of $635, you get $41,075. Those are the only package options you can get. There is an abundance of accessories and other "creature comforts" you can add, just like every other manufacturer offers, that can be installed by the dealer.
According to Hondas website, the Pilot costs $39,779 when equipped with the DVD entertainment system, tow package, navigation and rear back up sensors. This is as closely equipped to the CX-9 as I could possibly get. This is a difference of $1,296. Considering that the CX-9 is up to date in technology, size and power, and the Pilot is not, the $1,200 difference is quite minimal.
FWIW, I also test drove a CX9, and I thought the front seats were extremely comfortable, and the design of the rear two rows of seats seemed to be very well thought out.