Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
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
During a testdrive, this is what someone would instinctly feel out and they would use those instincts to like or dislike the car. After they get the car, they feel the turning radius and adjust accordingly. For the original poster it plays a factor, I'm the type that adjusts accordingly.
If I bought a Freestyle, I'm sure that after a while (and maybe a little grumbling ), I would get used to it and never give it another thought as long as the rest of it was to my liking.
I have driven the Pilot, Highlander, Acadia, Outlook, CX-9, and the MKX. I know looks is very subjective, but I think the Veracruz is good looking, and certainly good driving. I didn’t like the transmission in the Acadia, Outlook, and MKX. I really like the transmission in the CX-9, and Veracruz. They are very similar, if not the same by Aisin.
I think the center consol in the CX-9 is way too high, uncomfortable, and confining.
Third row seating is probably roomier in the Acadia, but not by much. The Veracruz will be fine for my grandkids for many years.
My local dealer here in Washington State wants full MSRP, so I must look elsewhere to buy. Anyone got any ideas?
Good Luck
FS = 74.4, Tahoe + 79, Land Cruiser = 76.4, Durango = 76.4.
The Veracruz by the way is 76.6 inches wide.
wait a minute now, the acadia gets exactly 1 mpg less than the freestyle, and that's with the stingier standards the Fs hasn't seen. And besides that, who wouldn't like a roomier bettrer looking and handling SUV for one less mpg?
Also, the Acadia is heavier by 700 lbs (AWD FS - it is 900 lbs heavier than my FWD). No way you are going to throw that much weight around at 19 / 24,
compare apples to apples. the FWD acadia is only 500lbs heavier than the freestyle, the awd 700lbs. The new taurus X will be heavier with worse mpg.
FWIW, I get 20 in town and 26 80 MPH highway in my 2006 FS. At 65 it will get around 30 MPG.
You do not get 30 mpg in an FS. My friend has had a LIGHTER 500 for a year or two of highway driving and doesn't get better than 26mpg. Or 19 in the city.
Someone else should straighten his facts.
The wife had a '94 elantra. took to the dealer many times for engine problems. She was in an accident in it in '97. neither airbag deployed. I won't ever get a Hyundai again. Once a problem, always a problem right?
See? maybe you should give GM another shot. Your Cutlass was a '95. surely Gm has improved (and they don't even make Oldsmobile anymore). don't have to like the Outlook, but all GMs aren't bad.
,
- touch and feel of the steering wheel
- more connected than the disconnected CX-9
- power should be adequet
- 2nd and 3rd rows, w/ 2nd row slided back all the way, still a bit knee room at 3rd row.
- display is much nicer than the CX-9's red
- center gauge's eclips light effect
- a personal touch down to every individual level, just count how many vents on the back (ceiling, b-pilar and floor)
- tire pressure tells which one, CX-9 doesn't.
- large side mirror w/ turn signal.
- almost all other things
,
- a slightly lagging in the transmission, perhaps I'm so used to Honda's VTEC
- gas pedal is a bit more in-sensitive than CX-9, a better one. wish it's as precise as my Honda's.
- no HID, wish they swap the central cooler for it.
- very little cargo when 3rd row is up, this is the same for all normal size CUV and SUV. CX-9 has a bit more room.
Overall, I'm sold to this. Dealer had no idea for how long the actual delivery will come.
Not sure if Honda will roll out a NEW pilot this fall, wait three more weeks when NYC Auto Show opens.
1. If it ever says *Host* after your name, I'll take your advice under consideration. Otherwise, I thought your chiding was condescending, and frankly, unsolicited. Thanks, but no thanks.
2. As for my remark, I was trying to add some levity to what I thought was an asinine argument... hence the smiley in my post. :P You may be right: "bigger is better" might well be a common view (although I doubt it's the majority of vehicle buyers that hold it). Personally I think "bigger is better" is a trend that is a symptom of something WRONG with the American market, all the way from how we eat to what we commute in.
Really, I'm no Michael Moore, but if you read the *entire* thread and others in the SUV category, you'll see some valid points about:
a) how weight is the enemy of braking, acceleration, handling, and fuel efficiency.
b) how savvy structural engineering can be just as protective in a collision as sheer mass, and
c) how two vehicles in the same class and of very similar dimensions can be several hundred pounds apart in weight with absolutely no appreciable benefits going to the flabbier model.
But hey, it's a free country. If you cling fast to what I consider the decades-old vision of "good 'ol American iron's" solidity equalling value and crashworthiness, you're welcome to do so. ...But I'm also free to point, click, and post as randomly as I like, when I think it's relevant to the topic and that it might spark some meaningful conversation.
Cheers.
-c92
You're right I just saw 31mpg 3 days ago after filling up and driving home at a steady 65mph highway cruise after taking my daughter to the doctor, so yes there are and have been many(read around the posts) FS's that have gotten 30+mpg.
I had an accident in the Cutlass and neither airbag deployed either even though it had been recalled for airbag issues and checked by a dealer. Luckily I wasn't hurt. I don't really like the Acadia or Outlook, but I like the look of the Enclave. It's out of the budget in the near future though.
Guess Ford couldn't spare a Freestyle?
Did they have 08 Taurus and Sable sedans on display?
My airbags didn't deploy in my Pathfinder when I rear-ended somebody in '02 , nor when my daughter wrapped it around a small tree in '06. Both were minor accidents (if $6000 damage can be considered minor ) and no one was hurt. Airbag deployment would have been a waste and would have just been more expensive to fix.
The only thing they did wrong was put us in that GT model. Now my wife wants BU camera and 6 y/o wants talking navigation and I want the Xenon HID lights. Looks like I'm going to be spending about $6k more than I intended ...
Excuse me sir, but I am going to ignore this ignorant comment until you drive your own FreeStyle (as I do) between 60 - 65 MPH (highway) and report your MPG. I am the one with the FS, and I do not make up numbers.
FWIW, I'm not sure if your "friend" has a CVT in that 500.
If you have some facts to report on the FS, be my guest.
Considering the carrying capacities & etc (everything except towing), I think that these two are pretty much apples to apples. You might also note that I was comparing the FS (not the Taurus X) to the Acadia.
Where did you get the weight values for Taurus X? The Ford website does not have specs yet. I also have not seen EPA values on the "X" as of yet (please don't refer to the EPA site - it has only "estimates" for 2008 models based on a math formula applied to the 2007 model. We won't know the actual EPA until they are actually tested. The "math" method is useless because the Taurus X will have a new transmission and a new engine).
However, thank you for making my point. The Acadia is 500 - 700 lbs heavier than the FS. My own experience is that the heavier the car, the more the MPG will suffer off of EPA mileage, especially in the City. It's that pesky physics, you know...
Oh, it doesn't happen often with me either. I get 25.5 @ 80 MPH, which has been the speed at which I usually travel. The 30 is only at slower speeds, and I should note it is at higher altitude as well, though everyone on these boards assures me that higher altitude is supposed to mean less MPG.
No, the Freestyle is being replaced by "Taurus X", so there would be no point in having both models there. The auto shows are there to highlight the newer models.
23 Civic Type-R / 22 MDX Type-S / 21 Tesla Y LR / 03 Montero Ltd
I was talking about the FS! and i was told by the guy showing the taurus X at the Chicago auto show that the taurus X will be heavier with worse MPG. and it makes sense- I mean as you said- bigger engine= worse MPG. I will admit- the FS is light for it's size. But for 500-600 lbs more, it's funny the Acadia handles better, and gets nearly the same MPG. Form what you say, if I drive at 65 mph in an acadia, I'll probably get 29-30 mpg myself. Different cars=different physics equation. Funny isn't it?
It was actully a dumb move not having the FS there. They want to showcase the cars they already have. They want to sell cars at auto shows, too. THe only places this doesn't apply is in Detreoit and LA, and New York. And not being able to see the inside of what they want to buy isn't smart. Maybe Ford will start making some smart moves. It might help the sales of their slow moving Freestyle!
I read a little while back that some guy thinks an Expedition has the best third row seat out there! I hope we all agree that minivans have the best hands down! I had a Grand Caravan for the family and that was real room. No CUV can outdo that presently- though the Acadia is the closest thing. I still didn't get 30 mpg in that, either, and that was a 3900 lbs vehicle.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
So in the "real world", with people driving 70 mph or so, you'd probably rarely see 30 mpg, but it does seem possible.
No, the only big display was the 08 Taurus X.
The problem is simply that car shows are for actually climbing in the vehicles, giving you a chance to try a bunch back-to-back. If something is preproduction, that's one thing, but I doubt anyone who was there shopping CUVs/SUVs like the Pilot, Acadia, CX9 etc that were open and ready to be clumb in, gave the Taurus X more than a casual look. Ford's shooting itself in the foot here.
I read a little while back that some guy thinks an Expedition has the best third row seat out there! I hope we all agree that minivans have the best hands down! I had a Grand Caravan for the family and that was real room. No CUV can outdo that presently- though the Acadia is the closest thing. I still didn't get 30 mpg in that, either, and that was a 3900 lbs vehicle."
Buy a FS then and you to can experience what those of us OWNERS are. The fact is I did get the mpg and can do it with regularity with a conscious effort and a light foot.
Now you are changing topic and retreating now that you want to discuss the 3rd row of the expedition or grand caravan as opposed to being so vehement in you mpg misinformation. Good move on your part as you weren't going to win that one.
Who cares what we all agree to(or won't...EVER), people around here are befuddled by the attributes of the FS and the fact that in the REAL WORLD there are owners that can get 30+mpg in a package that has usable space behind an occupied third row, gets highest marks for all of the crash and roll over testing, is forward thinking in the fact that they didn't stuff the biggest motor they had in the thing but put their best at the time and attached the very simple and competant CVT to it to maximize its efficiency in a package that is simple and understated in it's design aesthetic(much more successful in monochrome in my opinion as it all comes together as opposed to paint by numbers 2-tone). I just wish the interior materials were a bit better as that is my only real criticism.
Ford had picked the best from it's corporate parts bins initially and with the '08 has sold it out with the adoption of the 3.5l/6spd for all the simple minded folk that can't wrap their heads around a package that is quite competant in it's current guise because they don't know what a CVT is(piss poor marketing Ford) and a lower hp number(typical american I want more, more, more think because being faster than its competition at introduction is never enough for anyone) and light weight(relatively). Oh yeah and you can get all of this at a price multiple thousands less than msrp and invoice making them significantly cheaper than the competition because people haven't gotten the clue yet.
Put your dockers on, grab your starbucks and leave your beige development house and go buy the latest hyundai/gmc/saturn/honda/toyota flavor that you will inevitably find flaw with over time just you have with the FS because it was out to market 2 years BEFORE the competition with happy owners. The competition has had 2 years to learn the market that the FS went headlong into making them a little late to the party. Ford's problem is that they have management that didn't know what to do with the segment and now they are walking around with a big spot on their suit pants where they wet themselves for missing a very lucrative and growing market segment and playing to the strengths of the package they introduced initially.
Is the FS perfect, no, none of them are but you pick your poison and move on.
They had a Freestyle at the Houston show. Maybe somebody decided to drive off with it.
And...no offense, freealphas...I have nothing against the Freestyle, but you must have the only car out there that does better than its EPA ratings....if you're getting 30 mpg @65mpg then good for you...but frankly I think you need to re-measure that. You're doing better than a 4 cylinder Honda Accord, which is much lighter and more efficient than the FreeStyle.
If you notice the tests done in Autoweek, it is not that uncommon to see auto testers (who are not likely to feather the throttle) as often as not meet or come close to the EPA figures. If anything, the EPA numbers, even before the 2008 changes, are conservative for many models. In fact, I doubt I have had a single vehicle that didn't exceed them when the weather and roads and traffic conditions are all good.
I think part of it is how people drive. If I go 66-70 (which I usually do on the interstates because I like good mileage), absolutely everyone goes flying past me. Why anyone thinks an EPA figure obtained on a cycle going 45 - 55 should approximate anything at 80 is beyond me. Wind resistance effects rise exponentially at higher speeds. The other factor is how loaded down some of these 80 mph missiles are. If you have 4 people are lots of stuff aboard, you're just not going to see high mileage. Same if you weigh 300 lbs (not that there's anything wrong with that, but bigger people come equipped with more mass).
That's a common mischaracterization but the drag force actually varies quadratically with speed - not exponentially.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
And I'm sorry - I do not mean to question anyone's honesty. My point (not very well said) is that the 31/32 MPG Freestyle posts seem to want to compare it on this basis to all the other vehicles' EPA numbers, which seems to me to be a little unfair. 31 MPG at 62 mph on a level highway with cruise control seems plausible (and very good for a vehicle the size of the Freestye). However, that seems to the ideal driving condition for maximum mileage, and not what one would likely get in more normal conditions, which the EPA cycle tries to estimate.
Most cars will exceed the EPA estimate in ideal conditions. My last vehicle usually got 2-3 MPG better than what it was rated when cruising at 70mpg on long trips.
For the sake of comparison, I'll try to report in on the Acadia once I've broken it in and had a chance to take a longer highway trip (although I simply can't drive 62 MPH on an open road
You're like most people then. But it wasn't that long ago that the national speed limit was 55MPH. 62 seemed perfectly adequate, and no cop was going to stop you for driving at that speed. 63-65 was a judgement call. Anyone who insisted on driving over 65 spent a lot of time on the shoulder of the road with their license and registration in hand.
Granted, American drivers are some of the very worst I have encountered anywhere (unable to back up and resume going forward without a big pause, unable to exercise simple evasive maneuvers, routinely drive too fast for conditions, are unaware of vehicles around them, take corners like they are driving a loaded hay wagon, tailgate at speed but can't seem to merge at speed into expressway traffic, cut people off, yada yada), but nonetheless, so many feel an entitlement that is totally unwarranted, and a tendency to yell or flip the bird even when when they are at fault.
So someone drving in the right lane at 65 should not be penalized by the impatient guy who discovers the left lane is even more tied up at the moment...so Mr. 65-on-the-right must purposely be trying to impede his progress.
Left lane bandits are another story, or another example of typically incompetent American driving. Whoa, did I get off topic. Let's all try to be both a bit more tolerant out there, and a lot more alert...and now we resume the CUV discussion.
In many other countries, it is harder to get your driver's license and costs alot more money. It's also harder to get your license back after many driving transgressions. Many Americans also view driving as a right, rather than a privelege.
Quick question: Has anyone with one of the CUV's listed in this forum actually towed anything yet? I'd like to hear what some people think as I will be doing some light duty towing from time to time.
The Edge is also 400 lbs heavier than the FS.
New Mexico and Arizona have 75 MPH limits on Interstate 40. Believe me, with 40 miles between cities, you need that speed... :shades:
Not really. There is no law requiring one to move to the right hand lane, such as there is in Europe. So those people are perfectly legal (if a bit frustrating). :mad: