Now you're talking. Yep I know the hybrids are degraded by cold, but our ICE's are too. Didn't get close to the EPA, but didn't expect to either given it was cold, the driving distances were short and the vehicles aren't broken in yet. Knowing that there are a number of variables with city mileage especially with Hybrids that's why I did the comparison driving using my regular route. We'll garage the vehicle and use a block heater which apparently significantly improves the Hybrid performance in cold weather so I might even do better.
I did the test, so I know that I'll make the mileage savings I posted above. My driving achieved a 5.4L per 100km consumption improvement between the Hybrid and conventional powertrains which does correspond to 2.5-3 tons of reduced carbon footprint per year. Please point out any flaw in my post about the difference in fuel economy between the regular and Hybrid versions that I generated. The absolute numbers are irrelevant but the savings are what matters. The issue with the kids is not about bragging rights, but rather that as 9 year old boys they notice and connect to a vehicle, so we can talk about it. We want them to take these issues seriously. Things like the adding home insulation in our attic or basement and high efficiency boiler to heat the house just don't register and mean nothing to them. Trust me, we tried. I won't even start on the subject of convincing them why it's good to walk to/from school whenever possible My wife fell in love with the Nav and 8" rear view camera screen. So we'd have to get the Limited with Nav or Hybrid Limited. That has a price difference of $4000. Living in BC I get over $3500 in combined gov't tax bursuries for the Hybrid purchase. (The Federal credit has been cancelled when the previous programme expires, but that doesn't happen for another year.) That reduces the price differential for our desired Hybrid model to only $500. The worst posted mileage by actual owners of the Highlander Hybrid is still much better than the regular gas model, so even in a worst case scenario, I'll save that $500 in only one year of filling up. My mini-test numbers would see that recouped in a matter of months. Therefore if we buy the Hybrid we can reduce our carbon footprint and save money at the same time. Hard to find fault with that. Honestly the $$ and compromises of the regular Highlander would not allow me to buy it. The outside issue was that the money saved getting the VC would go towards another project which we expected to be solar domestic hot water which is well established and proven technology FWIW. The Bimmer is a complex story, but related to whether we would simply replace my wife's car with another vehicle for her which could pick the boys up at school for example but then we considered making it a family car replacement to markedly reduce the Yukon XL use, hence the Highlander or VC. I won't bore you with the details but since her personal vehicle sees such small annual mileage, we would never have gone hybrid there. YMMV.
i think you are over emphasizing the 'reduced carbon footprint' angle. if i told anyone i picked my suv over another due to it's 'reduced carbon footprint', i would get laughed at. i hope you enjoy your vehicle for a long time. my posts are not meant to be judge mental, hopefully realistic. we have 2 suv's and my next purchase will not have fuel efficiency at the top of the list.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
we have 2 suv's and my next purchase will not have fuel efficiency at the top of the list. Even if fuel efficiency is somewhere on your list that's at least progress! It may take a generation for environmental issue to really have a big impact on folk's buying decisions.
i grew up, driving wise, in the gas crisis days of the70's early 80's. one of the decisions i made as a result of that is to not live too far from work. another one seems to be to own multiple cars(gas rationing). that is why gas mileage is not high on my list of vehicle 'must haves'.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
i think you are over emphasizing the 'reduced carbon footprint' angle. if i told anyone i picked my suv over another due to it's 'reduced carbon footprint', i would get laughed at. Luckily I'm not afraid of being laughed at. We weren't out to buy an SUV anyway, just an AWD 7 passenger vehicle with good fuel economy. Truth be told, the final decision was my wife's not mine as it replaces her car. Nevretheless, I support the logic of the decision.
we have 2 suv's and my next purchase will not have fuel efficiency at the top of the list.
10 years ago, that would have been the dominant consumer response, but unfortunately for GM and Ford that is a shrinking demographic.
I think a lot of folks could get by with a Highlander, Kia Rondo, Mazda5 or other more efficient 3 row vehicles if they really wanted to. Considering that the average family has 2 kids, I'd say that on average, most people just use the 3rd row only occasionally and with a smaller 3 row vehicle and just slide the 1st and 2nd row seats forward a little bit when using all three rows.
When I bought our FS in 2005, it was one of the (if not the) most fuel efficient 3 row vehicles out there. Even today after 60,000 miles of driving it will get almost 30mpg if I keep the speeds under 65mph, about 27mpg on a constant 70mph, and outside of long road trips, it gets in the low 20's mpg for mixed suburb/highway driving (a little worse in the winter). When I need to replace this vehicle (hopefully in about another 7 years), we'll look at a small 3 row vehicle as a replacement. Maybe by then there will a lot more choices in efficient 3 row vehicles.
Yes, exactly. There is a some compromise with just about all of these vehicles. Outside of full size, long SUV's and vans, the third rows get tight. I'm a very average 5'9", and I made a point of riding in the third row of every one of these we looked at. I know full well that the third row will only be used occasionally, but our lifestyle provides frequent occasion for that use.
The TX and the lambdas provide the most third row space. The likes of the Highlander, VC, and Pilot were ok, but still tighter. The Rav4 and Santa Fe were tighter. The smallest like the Rondo and Mazda5 were tighter still. Just simple physics, there's only so much room there. All perfectly adequate for occasional or short term use. If you have a family of six or larger and will use the third row more, perhaps these are not the vehicles to consider, but if you do, you should realize that these third rows are tight to varying degrees.
You're right, in that you really have to sit in the 3rd rows to see how you really fit, but remember to adjust the first two rows to where you'd be comfortable and not necessarily to their rear-most position. That will give you a few more inches of legroom in the 3rd row, since the average person doesn't drive with their seats all the way back.
I'm looking for input on a couple of things, and welcome any input I can get.
First off, my parents are doing the shopping. They have a Civic, and want a second, bigger vehicle for highway trips. Their priorities are:
Comfort - Smooth Ride, Roomy and Comfortable Seating
Power - This vehicle will be the trip car, used at 70 + MPH and they want plenty of oomph for passing, although they don't have a problem with the Civic (140hp) in this regard they'd like more.
Price - Lux features for under $28k.
Any thoughts on how the ride of the Edge is compared to others in the class? Compared to other sedans? I have an Accord; I'd assume Edge rides smoother than that? I'd LOVE input from people who have both a sedan and an Edge on the noticeable driving differences (besides size).
I'd also love to hear from people who compared the Edge to a Taurus or Taurus X (my folks are really interested in the Taurus Sedan as well), although this is probably a long shot.
Interesting test, I've being waiting for one like it. I think we all knew what the outcome would be (1-Odyssey, 2-Acadia, 3-Sequoia). Acadia held it's own pretty well. They said it was a good comprimise of the utility of the two.
"What is the best choice for most people? You know, a typical family doing typical things like home improvement projects, picking up relatives and all their holiday gear at the airport, transporting the kids to kung-fu class....
Once we ruled out off-roading and towing as specialized activities, we settled on a framework. The vehicle had to accommodate at least seven typical adults and still fit in a normal garage. This still didn't narrow the field much, as you can find dozens of full-size SUVs, crossovers and minivans that all fit the bill.
So here we have assembled the best and most sizable examples of their respective classes of full-size SUV, crossover and minivan to determine if bigger is better, or if crossing over truly hits the sweet spot, or if the lowly minivan has enough capability."
I think it's pretty obvious that the minivan is the most practical for most folks and that SUVs and big CUVs are there just for style/looks...but so what! If people like the looks of a SUV/CUV and don't need the max space of a minivan, then they can buy and enjoy. BTW, If they would have compared the 8 passenger Sienna, they would have found an even more practical option over the Odyssey.
I think we are pretty typical of folks shopping this/these segment(s). Family of four, kids age 3 and 5, live in moderate sized city, travel occasionally to visit relatives and vacation, needing a multi-function buggy that fills many roles for daily use. We have watched as friends' and familys' kids age and they increasingly have tag-a-longs, and family and friends share the burden of hauling kids to and fro. We have nothing to tow and going off road means navigating a parking lot. Getting more than a couple of inches of snow means simply staying home for the most part. So, we have shopped SUV's, vans, and CUV's.
Despite the article's premise, I have a sneaky suspicion that the majority of car purchase decisions are made on an emotional basis rather than an objective one. Those decisions are often followed up with objective justifications. In other words, if it doesn't fit the desired image or the styling offends the senses, the decision goes against the car no matter how practical it may be. As sexist as it sounds, I also think that when a family is involved, the final decision is often made by the woman in the mix, or at the very least she wields the most influence. We are atypical in that my wife works full time and I do most of the kids hauling, but trust me, if she don't like it, we ain't buying it.
The three primary criticisms of the Ody were the tiny 8th seat, slowest-in-test acceleration, and the lack of AWD.
The Sienna addresses all 3 of those concerns.
I just tried to build a Sienna AWD with seating for 8 and they wouldn't let me. Can you even get that combo in the real world? Their site tells me I have to get the SE trim to have seating for 8, and that is the only trim with that option. Adding AWD drops that trim and makes you get a 7-seat config.
the majority of car purchase decisions are made on an emotional basis
That's a good point. And if that's what it takes for you to be happy with the purchase, then that's what you should get. In the end it's your money, your call.
final decision is often made by the woman in the mix
I believe we are going to disagree with that, but I'll have to check with the wife first.
But IMHO an 8 seater is really overkill and a flawed choice of criteria for an average consumer. 6 or 7 pass configurations are much more comfortable and often more ergonomic. Almost all consumers would never need seating for that number more than once a year if at all. Why compromise 364 days of the year for that, just take a second vehicle in those cases. Heck, we are a family of 6 and clearly in the minority with such a large family. We have only twice had 8 passengers in the Yukon XLs in almost 8 years of ownership. Granted we had only 3 kids for 5 of those years, but still....
The main advantage of some of these 8 seaters is the 2nd row bench, so even if you're not carrying 8 people, it might be good to have the option to carry 5 in the first 2 rows leaving the rest for cargo. That's why with the Odyssey or Sienna, you have the option to add the extra seat in the 2nd row if you need it and if not, keep only 2 on the second row for easier access to the 3rd row. So even if you never actually carry 8 people, the 8 person seating capability gives you added seating options.
With lots of bulky gear, we've actually left the bigger portion of the third row up (folded down the 40% side) and taken out the 2nd row captain's chair from that side, and were able to carry gear in the well behind the 60% portion of the 3rd row, and carry a large outdoor shelf laid on its side in place of the folded/removed seats. Sill had five-passenger capacity (although we only had 4 people). Options indeed!
Of course, this was in the Odyssey (the only option in the test with that recessed "well" for cargo).
When I bought my FS 3 years ago I test drove minivans, but they all seemed to drive too big, and van-like to me, where-as the FS drove more car-like. That's why I think some of the smaller and mid-sized CUVs have an advantage over minivans in that they're not so wide and bulky and drive better, but if you're going to drive a big CUV that's as bulky as a minivan, drives like a minivan, but doesn't have the carrying capability of a minivan, then you might as well just get the minivan...again this is the logic side of the brain talking.
You said the "M" word 6 times or more; you're just asking to get ejected from here aren't ya!?
Just kidding; I compeltely agree with you though. To me, the Odyssey drove like my Accord but with a little less feel (tall sidewalls) and slightly (and I mean slightly) slower steering ratio. Otherwise, I can jump from one to the other with no issues at all.
Back to CUVs!!
Anybody here have a Ford Edge? My folks are interested in it, I'd love some owner reports, especially on ride, seat comfort, and highway power. TheGrad
I know what you mean, since I prefer smaller vehicles, but I test drove the Freestyle and every large/mid-size CUV I could think of and could not find a significant advantage in that regard. Perhaps it's a matter of expectations.
Were there different suspension setups on the Freestyle? Maybe wheel and tire combos that make a significant difference? :confuse:
Maybe you've come to appreciate those things after living with it for a while. I just took in on a regular test drive with the family. Measured results from magazines I've seen don't reflect that, either, in fact some tend to favor the better vans out there.
What city do you live in? I'm going to drop in for a ride-along so you can show me what I didn't see in my test drive.
Another agreement: One of the big reasons for why I'm in a Pilot and not a minivan is the Pilot is more than a foot shorter than the minivans (though the 5 is shorter still, but no ESC )
"BTW, if they would have compared the 8 passenger Sienna, they would have found an even more practical option over the Odyssey"
Um, no way! The Odyssey is so much nicer than the Sienna. Plus, I dislike the way the SIenna looks. If given the choice, I'd take the Honda in a second. Seems others feel the same way. Edmunds gave 1st place to the Honda in the last test. Of course one could say a benefit of the Sienna is it's quicker, but WHO CARES? It's a minivan (yeah- I said it). It's not for that. We shouldn't even be arguing over how quick CUVs are (yet we seem to). Bottom line is, Edmunds got the best van to use. And it stacked well against its non- like competition.
If I didn't have anyhting to contribute on this matter, I'd go off because you used the M word.
But here we'll really have to disagree. I think the Odyssey is the best van out there. After driving it, I think its the most ergonomical, comfortable, and has the best ride. So it's not quicker than the Sienna? It's a minivan. No AWD? Minivan. Seats only 7? Minivan. If I needed the extra passenger seat, I'd get an extended conversion van that seats nine. Also, I'm not realy fond of the Sienna's looks.
"I believe we are going to disagree with that, but I'll have to check with the wife first."
What a nice guy. My wife would really love me if I were you. Me? Back in '98 I decided she would drive a minivan.She kicked and screamed (during the test drive, and while I was signing the papers) but after the first couple of weeks of driving it, gave in. It was a good vehicle. Turned out to be a great choice, as it really did well in her accident (I got a nice I told you so out of that one). After the accident, I decided I'd be nice and try something different, and maybe more stylish.She still likes the Yukon, it's been great with little trouble. But she's begging for something new. When she begs enough, I let her drive my car.
No way, Sienna rides much smoother and is quieter.
and has the best ride
Ody handles better (mostly due to better steering feel), but Sienna rides better.
Any how, my point was as an SUV/crossover alternative, Sienna would more closely meet the needs of the shopper that wants AWD.
By the way, Edmunds tested the old 3.3l Sienna. The new engine is a big improvement, plus they added VSC and a few other improvements. So that comparison is outdated.
The Journey was added to the category list a couple of months or so ago. But it doesn't have to be on the category list to talk about it (we're limited to 9 make/models there).
It is about time to reshuffle the deck, so if anyone has other CUV suggestions to swap out on that list (fresh meat!) ....
Absolutely, this would be the place to talk about. Is it actually available yet? The preview reviews have been favourable. Doubt I'd ever get my wife in a Chrysler (family history), but I would expect it to sell like hot-cakes in Canada given it has basically been priced on par with the US. Makes me want to buy one on principle alone. FWIW, fully loaded it is about $12k cheaper than a TX Limited or VC GL and even less compared to any other real3 row CUV with AWD in leather trim. What remains to be seen is whether or not it is a real 3 row contender. PReviews suggest it might be.
Journeys started hitting the lots last week around here, though only in the 5 seat version. I visited a lot a few days ago. Was told 7 seaters will be here in about a month or so.
It is a good looking buggy. Priced very competitively. (they had an RT with leather no NAV or DVD for just over $27k) Chrysler continues its trend of offering interesting storage options (in the floor, under the front pass. seat, etc.) Second row travels fore and aft even in the 5 seater. I did not inspect closely, but fit and finish appeared typical of recent Chrysler. Did not drive one, but expect the 4 banger to be a little weak for this vehicle, and it is only offered in the SE trim. I'm guessing not many of those will sell and it is offered just to claim the MPG prize (not exactly Chrysler's strongest virtue). The SXT and RT trims should sell reasonably well, but Chrysler is going to have to push awareness of the vehicle in this very competitive segment. The saleman and sales manager I spoke with did not know much about the car.
A reporter wants to interview people who have switched their daily driver from a truck or SUV to a car within the past 18 months. If you have done so, or if you are considering doing so, and care to share your story, please reply to jfallon@edmunds.com no later than Monday, March 17, 2008 and include your daytime contact info and the makes/models involved.
"No way, Sienna rides much smoother and is quieter."
True- Hondas aren't known for being the quietist, but I think the Odyssey is smoother in ride then the Toyota. Ofcourse, this is coming from 4-5 driving experiences, compared to your every day. Also, the Sienna is more expensive. Edmunds topped the Honda out at 40g. The Sienna can hit 43g.
And I'm sure Edmunds has tested the current Sienna against the others.
"But I think it's more practical too. " How is a Odyssey more practical than a Sienna?
" "As far as the Edge... if I was looking for a 2 row CUV, I'd go with the Honda CRV." [you replied] You could, but you would lose a lot of interior space."
Here are the specs from the manufacturer's webpages. Note the that while the Edge is 8" longer, 4" wider, and 1" taller, the CRV has MORE cargo space, about the same headroom and legroom, less shoulder room, but about the same hip room (more in 1st row but less in 2nd row). So I think your comment that "you would lose a lot of interior space." is incorrect. The only gain is 2" more shoulder room over the CRV. In every other interior spec, the CRV is either equal or greater to the Edge.
In every other interior spec, the CRV is either equal or greater to the Edge.
I wish that there was a better way to measure cargo space than just cubic feet. This is often a poor way to measure the amount of actual usable space since some vehicles are considerably taller than others. How high would any of us actually stack stuff? It would be helpful if length x width of the cargo area were published.
Edmunds topped the Honda out at 40g. The Sienna can hit 43g.
True, but that's because the Sienna offers AWD, power folding 3rd row seat, HIDs, i.e. the loaded ones have more equipment.
And I'm sure Edmunds has tested the current Sienna against the others.
Not with the new 3.5l engine. Their last test used the 3.3l. There is a big difference in horsepower, plus since then they added a lot of safety features as well.
Any how, let's get back to crossovers. My post was in response to the Edmunds article that compared an Acadia to a van.
Journey - still haven't been inside one yet. My concern is the local dealer has then for $27-31k, which seems like a lot given it's based on the Avenger sedan (which sells under $20k mostly). That seems like quite a stretch. Perhaps too close to the Grand Caravan, also.
I've often stacked suitcases vertically (that's why you have side mirrors), so CuFt is the best way to determine cargo areas. But my point is that the Edge doesn't have any "edge" over the CRV in terms of interior space. One of the big problems with Ford vehicles lately is that they're hoping style wins over substance. The Edge and upcoming Flex are both CUVs that don't offer anything special in terms of substance, but only have their exterior style to make them stand out.
Comments
The issue with the kids is not about bragging rights, but rather that as 9 year old boys they notice and connect to a vehicle, so we can talk about it. We want them to take these issues seriously. Things like the adding home insulation in our attic or basement and high efficiency boiler to heat the house just don't register and mean nothing to them. Trust me, we tried. I won't even start on the subject of convincing them why it's good to walk to/from school whenever possible
My wife fell in love with the Nav and 8" rear view camera screen. So we'd have to get the Limited with Nav or Hybrid Limited. That has a price difference of $4000. Living in BC I get over $3500 in combined gov't tax bursuries for the Hybrid purchase. (The Federal credit has been cancelled when the previous programme expires, but that doesn't happen for another year.) That reduces the price differential for our desired Hybrid model to only $500. The worst posted mileage by actual owners of the Highlander Hybrid is still much better than the regular gas model, so even in a worst case scenario, I'll save that $500 in only one year of filling up. My mini-test numbers would see that recouped in a matter of months. Therefore if we buy the Hybrid we can reduce our carbon footprint and save money at the same time. Hard to find fault with that. Honestly the $$ and compromises of the regular Highlander would not allow me to buy it. The outside issue was that the money saved getting the VC would go towards another project which we expected to be solar domestic hot water which is well established and proven technology FWIW.
The Bimmer is a complex story, but related to whether we would simply replace my wife's car with another vehicle for her which could pick the boys up at school for example but then we considered making it a family car replacement to markedly reduce the Yukon XL use, hence the Highlander or VC. I won't bore you with the details but since her personal vehicle sees such small annual mileage, we would never have gone hybrid there. YMMV.
if i told anyone i picked my suv over another due to it's 'reduced carbon footprint', i would get laughed at.
i hope you enjoy your vehicle for a long time.
my posts are not meant to be judge mental, hopefully realistic.
we have 2 suv's and my next purchase will not have fuel efficiency at the top of the list.
Even if fuel efficiency is somewhere on your list that's at least progress! It may take a generation for environmental issue to really have a big impact on folk's buying decisions.
one of the decisions i made as a result of that is to not live too far from work.
another one seems to be to own multiple cars(gas rationing).
that is why gas mileage is not high on my list of vehicle 'must haves'.
if i told anyone i picked my suv over another due to it's 'reduced carbon footprint', i would get laughed at.
Luckily I'm not afraid of being laughed at. We weren't out to buy an SUV anyway, just an AWD 7 passenger vehicle with good fuel economy. Truth be told, the final decision was my wife's not mine as it replaces her car. Nevretheless, I support the logic of the decision.
we have 2 suv's and my next purchase will not have fuel efficiency at the top of the list.
10 years ago, that would have been the dominant consumer response, but unfortunately for GM and Ford that is a shrinking demographic.
When I bought our FS in 2005, it was one of the (if not the) most fuel efficient 3 row vehicles out there. Even today after 60,000 miles of driving it will get almost 30mpg if I keep the speeds under 65mph, about 27mpg on a constant 70mph, and outside of long road trips, it gets in the low 20's mpg for mixed suburb/highway driving (a little worse in the winter). When I need to replace this vehicle (hopefully in about another 7 years), we'll look at a small 3 row vehicle as a replacement. Maybe by then there will a lot more choices in efficient 3 row vehicles.
The TX and the lambdas provide the most third row space. The likes of the Highlander, VC, and Pilot were ok, but still tighter. The Rav4 and Santa Fe were tighter. The smallest like the Rondo and Mazda5 were tighter still. Just simple physics, there's only so much room there. All perfectly adequate for occasional or short term use. If you have a family of six or larger and will use the third row more, perhaps these are not the vehicles to consider, but if you do, you should realize that these third rows are tight to varying degrees.
First off, my parents are doing the shopping. They have a Civic, and want a second, bigger vehicle for highway trips. Their priorities are:
Comfort - Smooth Ride, Roomy and Comfortable Seating
Power - This vehicle will be the trip car, used at 70 + MPH and they want plenty of oomph for passing, although they don't have a problem with the Civic (140hp) in this regard they'd like more.
Price - Lux features for under $28k.
Any thoughts on how the ride of the Edge is compared to others in the class? Compared to other sedans? I have an Accord; I'd assume Edge rides smoother than that? I'd LOVE input from people who have both a sedan and an Edge on the noticeable driving differences (besides size).
I'd also love to hear from people who compared the Edge to a Taurus or Taurus X (my folks are really interested in the Taurus Sedan as well), although this is probably a long shot.
Thanks for any input!
TheGraduate
"What is the best choice for most people? You know, a typical family doing typical things like home improvement projects, picking up relatives and all their holiday gear at the airport, transporting the kids to kung-fu class....
Once we ruled out off-roading and towing as specialized activities, we settled on a framework. The vehicle had to accommodate at least seven typical adults and still fit in a normal garage. This still didn't narrow the field much, as you can find dozens of full-size SUVs, crossovers and minivans that all fit the bill.
So here we have assembled the best and most sizable examples of their respective classes of full-size SUV, crossover and minivan to determine if bigger is better, or if crossing over truly hits the sweet spot, or if the lowly minivan has enough capability."
2008 Comparison Test: Crossover vs. Minivan vs. SUV (Inside Line)
The three primary criticisms of the Ody were the tiny 8th seat, slowest-in-test acceleration, and the lack of AWD.
The Sienna addresses all 3 of those concerns.
I'd like to thank Edmunds for validating a point I've been making here in this thread for about a year now.
Despite the article's premise, I have a sneaky suspicion that the majority of car purchase decisions are made on an emotional basis rather than an objective one. Those decisions are often followed up with objective justifications. In other words, if it doesn't fit the desired image or the styling offends the senses, the decision goes against the car no matter how practical it may be. As sexist as it sounds, I also think that when a family is involved, the final decision is often made by the woman in the mix, or at the very least she wields the most influence. We are atypical in that my wife works full time and I do most of the kids hauling, but trust me, if she don't like it, we ain't buying it.
The Sienna addresses all 3 of those concerns.
I just tried to build a Sienna AWD with seating for 8 and they wouldn't let me. Can you even get that combo in the real world? Their site tells me I have to get the SE trim to have seating for 8, and that is the only trim with that option. Adding AWD drops that trim and makes you get a 7-seat config.
That's a good point. And if that's what it takes for you to be happy with the purchase, then that's what you should get. In the end it's your money, your call.
final decision is often made by the woman in the mix
I believe we are going to disagree with that, but I'll have to check with the wife first.
I should have said it can address each of those 3 concerns, but not all at the same time.
AWD models only come with 7 seats. The 8 seater's floor plan wouldn't fit with the driveshaft going to the rear.
You can get the 8 seater as a FWD CE or a FWD LE.
Still, it comes closer than the Ody to their ideal family vehicle.
The Sequioa was an 8 seater, though. A tight 3rd row, but 8 seatbelts at least.
And if anyone brings up the Suburban I'm pulling out the secret weapon - the Dodge Sprinter.
My first short wheel base minivan was configured this way, and I liked it so much, I threw away a bench in my current minivan to make it a 5 seater.
Of course, this was in the Odyssey (the only option in the test with that recessed "well" for cargo).
Just kidding; I compeltely agree with you though. To me, the Odyssey drove like my Accord but with a little less feel (tall sidewalls) and slightly (and I mean slightly) slower steering ratio. Otherwise, I can jump from one to the other with no issues at all.
Back to CUVs!!
Anybody here have a Ford Edge? My folks are interested in it, I'd love some owner reports, especially on ride, seat comfort, and highway power.
TheGrad
Were there different suspension setups on the Freestyle? Maybe wheel and tire combos that make a significant difference? :confuse:
Maybe you've come to appreciate those things after living with it for a while. I just took in on a regular test drive with the family. Measured results from magazines I've seen don't reflect that, either, in fact some tend to favor the better vans out there.
What city do you live in? I'm going to drop in for a ride-along so you can show me what I didn't see in my test drive.
One of the big reasons for why I'm in a Pilot and not a minivan is the Pilot is more than a foot shorter than the minivans (though the 5 is shorter still, but no ESC
Um, no way! The Odyssey is so much nicer than the Sienna. Plus, I dislike the way the SIenna looks. If given the choice, I'd take the Honda in a second. Seems others feel the same way. Edmunds gave 1st place to the Honda in the last test. Of course one could say a benefit of the Sienna is it's quicker, but WHO CARES? It's a minivan (yeah- I said it). It's not for that. We shouldn't even be arguing over how quick CUVs are (yet we seem to). Bottom line is, Edmunds got the best van to use. And it stacked well against its non- like competition.
But here we'll really have to disagree. I think the Odyssey is the best van out there. After driving it, I think its the most ergonomical, comfortable, and has the best ride. So it's not quicker than the Sienna? It's a minivan. No AWD? Minivan. Seats only 7? Minivan. If I needed the extra passenger seat, I'd get an extended conversion van that seats nine. Also, I'm not realy fond of the Sienna's looks.
What a nice guy. My wife would really love me if I were you. Me? Back in '98 I decided she would drive a minivan.She kicked and screamed (during the test drive, and while I was signing the papers) but after the first couple of weeks of driving it, gave in. It was a good vehicle. Turned out to be a great choice, as it really did well in her accident (I got a nice I told you so out of that one). After the accident, I decided I'd be nice and try something different, and maybe more stylish.She still likes the Yukon, it's been great with little trouble. But she's begging for something new. When she begs enough, I let her drive my car.
You replied: "Um, no way! The Odyssey is so much nicer than the Sienna"
Note the phrase "practical option" has nothing to do with being "much nicer"
As far as the Edge...if I was looking for a 2 row CUV I'd go with the Honda CRV.
I'll give you that one, though both are good.
comfortable
No way, Sienna rides much smoother and is quieter.
and has the best ride
Ody handles better (mostly due to better steering feel), but Sienna rides better.
Any how, my point was as an SUV/crossover alternative, Sienna would more closely meet the needs of the shopper that wants AWD.
By the way, Edmunds tested the old 3.3l Sienna. The new engine is a big improvement, plus they added VSC and a few other improvements. So that comparison is outdated.
- Chad
It is about time to reshuffle the deck, so if anyone has other CUV suggestions to swap out on that list (fresh meat!) ....
FWIW, fully loaded it is about $12k cheaper than a TX Limited or VC GL and even less compared to any other real 3 row CUV with AWD in leather trim. What remains to be seen is whether or not it is a real 3 row contender. PReviews suggest it might be.
It is a good looking buggy. Priced very competitively. (they had an RT with leather no NAV or DVD for just over $27k) Chrysler continues its trend of offering interesting storage options (in the floor, under the front pass. seat, etc.) Second row travels fore and aft even in the 5 seater. I did not inspect closely, but fit and finish appeared typical of recent Chrysler. Did not drive one, but expect the 4 banger to be a little weak for this vehicle, and it is only offered in the SE trim. I'm guessing not many of those will sell and it is offered just to claim the MPG prize (not exactly Chrysler's strongest virtue). The SXT and RT trims should sell reasonably well, but Chrysler is going to have to push awareness of the vehicle in this very competitive segment. The saleman and sales manager I spoke with did not know much about the car.
You're right. But I think it's more practical too.
"As far as the Edge... if I was looking for a 2 row CUV, I'd go eith the Honda CRV."
You could, but you would lose a lot of interior space. The Edge is a small midsize CUV, the CRV, compact. I like the CRV better too, though.
True- Hondas aren't known for being the quietist, but I think the Odyssey is smoother in ride then the Toyota. Ofcourse, this is coming from 4-5 driving experiences, compared to your every day. Also, the Sienna is more expensive. Edmunds topped the Honda out at 40g. The Sienna can hit 43g.
And I'm sure Edmunds has tested the current Sienna against the others.
How is a Odyssey more practical than a Sienna?
" "As far as the Edge... if I was looking for a 2 row CUV, I'd go with the Honda CRV."
[you replied] You could, but you would lose a lot of interior space."
Here are the specs from the manufacturer's webpages. Note the that while the Edge is 8" longer, 4" wider, and 1" taller, the CRV has MORE cargo space, about the same headroom and legroom, less shoulder room, but about the same hip room (more in 1st row but less in 2nd row). So I think your comment that "you would lose a lot of interior space." is incorrect. The only gain is 2" more shoulder room over the CRV. In every other interior spec, the CRV is either equal or greater to the Edge.
Edge/CRV
Length 185.7/177.9
Width 75.5/71.6
Height 67.0/66.1
Headroom
Front row
40.0/40.9
Second row
39.3/38.6
Legroom
Front row
40.7/41.3
Second row
39.6/38.5
Shoulder room
Front row
58.9/56.9
Second row
58.8/56.0
Hip room
Front row
54.8/55.9
Second row
56.3/54.6
Cargo Volume behind front row
69.0/72.9 cu. ft.
Cargo Volume behind second row
32.2/35.7 cu. ft.
I wish that there was a better way to measure cargo space than just cubic feet. This is often a poor way to measure the amount of actual usable space since some vehicles are considerably taller than others. How high would any of us actually stack stuff? It would be helpful if length x width of the cargo area were published.
You've never moved using your personal vehicle, have you?
Having done it twice, the art of stacking becomes very important!
True, but that's because the Sienna offers AWD, power folding 3rd row seat, HIDs, i.e. the loaded ones have more equipment.
And I'm sure Edmunds has tested the current Sienna against the others.
Not with the new 3.5l engine. Their last test used the 3.3l. There is a big difference in horsepower, plus since then they added a lot of safety features as well.
Any how, let's get back to crossovers. My post was in response to the Edmunds article that compared an Acadia to a van.
Journey - still haven't been inside one yet. My concern is the local dealer has then for $27-31k, which seems like a lot given it's based on the Avenger sedan (which sells under $20k mostly). That seems like quite a stretch. Perhaps too close to the Grand Caravan, also.