Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to learn more!
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
They didn't. If you read the article is does not state that the Hyundai in question was an SUV, CUV, sedan, or coupe. It only states the brand Hyundai in general.
Anyone else experience this in a VC? I haven't driven it yet and was wondering if the handling was a little sloppy or if he's just not used to it yet. But it has been in his garage nearly a year now.
My normal driving the 08 VC handling feels as if the
-vehicle has the capability to do more if you push it to the limit type - of feeling. I hope I am making sense. I have not ,pushed it to the limit to where I would see the ESC Electronic Stability Control indicator blinking on the dash when engaged.
I think 07 VC was Hyundai's first year on this vehicle.
Maybe I am just too biased but I haven't owed a new car, just used cars (95 Altima SE and an old school 73 Mustange) until now. Though I get to feel some new cars from race simulators through the PC or game console.
I like the slightly narrower width of the Flex; makes it easier to park. Its not quite so portly (aka, "fat") as the others, yet has great interior space. The rear legroom of the Flex is huge compared to the others. This would make a great limo!
I like Edmunds comparison tool, so I'll bring in the TaurusX (Freestyle) and Dodge Journey. Here it is: Add TaurusX and Journey to the comparison -- click here. Note how the Flex has about the same exterior dimensions as the TaurusX(Freestyle), yet the only big advantage of the Flex is HUGE rear seat legroom! I do like the extra headroom up front of the Flex, too. The extra exterior inch width of the Flex over the TaurusX does not seem to be put to good use, as the doors of the Flex must be thicker than the TaurusX doors.
The Odyssey .3" longer, 1.2" wider, and .8" higher than the Flex. While the Flex has 4" more 2nd row legroom, the Odyssey has 8" more 3rd row legroom. Also, 9" more 2nd row hiproom and 7" more in the 3rd row. And the storage behind the 3rd row is 20CuFt for the Flex and 38.4 for the Odyssey. That's what I mean by design efficiency.
But you're right that in comparison to an Acadia, the Flex measures up pretty good. The Journey is a foot shorter, so it's hard to compare.
Here's a challenge: Somebody name another unit-body vehicle (no truck-framed BOF vehicles allowed) that weighs more than the Lambda vehicles. I don't think mankind has ever produced a heavier unit body vehicle.
The Chevy Traverse is listed at 5,015 lbs for the AWD version, and 4,722 for the 2WD version. By the way, for the Lambda 2WD models to get 17/24 EPA MPG scores is amazing for a 4700 lb vehicle. My '05 Ford F150 2WD weighs 100 lbs less, and it has enough iron in it to build a battleship, and only gets about 20 on the highway. (OK, a small battleship.)
The latest full test drive of the Flex appears in the Sept. '08 issue of Car and Driver, out now. I chuckled at some of the odd lines they had in there about the Flex:
---- styling is "T-square chic"
---- looks like a billboard starter kit
---- Look for the hilarious salesman-customer simulated conversation in there where they go over the Flex, Edge, and TaurusX, near the beginning of the article.
Car and Driver hated the seats (looks like plastic bags, uncomfortable) and they say that understeer starts too soon in a turn. Otherwise, the Flex looks like quality materials, is very quiet, and feels very solid. For some reason, even though the GMC Acadia is slightly heavier, the Acadia is faster 0-60 than the Flex with about the same horsepower. The Flex and Acadia use the same transmission (maybe a little difference in gear ratios in there), so I guess the Acadia engine must have better low-end torque. It might be Acadia's direct injection, something the Flex unfortunately doesn't have in the current model. Fuel economy between the Flex and Acadia is about the same, with the 2009 Acadia possibly pulling ahead with the direct injection, so the Acadia/Outlook wins with better acceleration in a heavier vehicle, with lower fuel consumption on top of all that compared to the Flex.
The Odyssey is priced about middle of the pack, maybe about 1 or 2 thousand bucks separating it from a rival choice. There are much cheaper CUVs with some room inside. Any can be had for somewhere in the area of 20-30 thousand bucks.
Now I see why the Journeys have been flying off dealers lots lately -- bargain.
The cheapest Journey goes for $20,000.
The cheapest XL-7 goes for $21,000.
The cheapest Santa Fe goes for $22,000.
The cheapest Odyssey minivan goes for $26,000.
The cheapest Edge goes for $26,000.
The cheapest Pilot goes for $27,000.
The cheapest Veracruz goes for $27,000.
The cheapest TaurusX goes for $27,000.
The cheapest Flex goes for $28,000.
The cheapest Outlook goes for $28,500.
The cheapest CX-9 is $29,000.
All MSRPs.
I don't see a lot of difference, except for the Journey, XL-7, and Santa Fe seem to be the bargains in large-ish CUVs.
Actually, with discounting, which Ford does more than anyone, the TaurusX and Edge are really priced at around $23k or so. I don't think Honda reduces their price much below sticker. (Anyone know of regular, habitual discounts on Hondas? I don't think they budge too often on price.)
I was pointing out the differences in the numbers from that comparison link listed above.
You know what is really interesting and surprising is that the Toyota Sienna minivan is actually cheaper (Edmunds TMV) than the Hyundai Entourage! A Korean vehicle cheaper than a Japanese competitor? Amazing.
National True Market Value (TMV®) Price $28,295
customize $28,680
customize $21,821 (this was the Ody)
customize $26,790
customize $25,419
customize
That's what I was referring to, e.g. your source. I was merely making an observations on the numbers you provided!
Perhaps the equipment levels were not comparable or new incentives have arrived since then.
It's tricky to price an Entourage because their "Limited" model isn't truly loaded, a moonroof is still optional for instance. Of course Toyota is guilty there as well, you need a PhD to understand their options packages, plus they change it every year.
The best way to compare is to start with the cheapest, base model of each. Most beginning with the '08 model year come with a lot of airbags and stability control standard, so the comparison is not bad. With options, the price can go up fast. Someone on a budget might shop for the base version of a given model. With that, the '08 Odyssey, if you can find a base version out there, is 6 thousand cheaper than an '09 Flex just appearing in showrooms. Someone stuck on getting a Honda might want the Pilot, at about 5,000 more than an Odyssey, and realize the model year-end deal on the Odyssey is the bargain.
The base Odyssey LX is about the cost of the Suzuki XL-7, and I'd say the Odyssey is the better deal. However, with the XL-7, you can wear black leather when in it and look cool/tough because Suzuki also makes motorcycles, while the Odyssey minivan only looks good in front of Toys-R-Us.
Plus, you climb out of a crossover with a diaper bag and a little baby girl in your arms and it's sort of hard to look cool.
Cute, maybe, but not cool.
Truth is, both have their uses. Our Forester has been great, and it will be our only snow vehicle. The clearance and AWD should come in handy, plus our mileage keeps improving. We were getting 34mpg on one all-highway stretch.
About the CUVs, the real subject here, there was an article saying that CUVs sales were surprisingly down as people now want cars with a good-size trunk instead of these station wagons on steroids. Many of these CUVs (Freestyle for one) gets better MPG than a lot of big cars out there, so I don't completely understand why CUVs aren't a little more popular right now.
About the CUVs, the real subject here, there was an article saying that CUVs sales were surprisingly down as people now want cars with a good-size trunk instead of these station wagons on steroids. Many of these CUVs (Freestyle for one) gets better MPG than a lot of big cars out there, so I don't completely understand why CUVs aren't a little more popular right now.
I am not surprised CUV sales are down. We have an '05 AWD Freestyle that we love, but have been bit hard by gas prices. The computer says the Freestyle only manages 16.5mpg with mixed city/suburban driving. On long road trips it typically manages 22mpg. This is lower than some other Freestyle owners report, but I believe it is most likely due to it being an AWD model which we do utilize in our long Minnesota winters.
By contrast our other car is a 2001 Saab 9-5 wagon. This is classified as a large car with a good sized cargo area. In the same type of city/suburban driving this car manages about 24mpg. On the highway it does better than 30, so by driving it instead of the more roomy Freestyle we increase our MPG by about 8. This is a significant difference for us because we have to drive a lot, so this summer we have been driving the Saab more often and the Freestyle less.
We love our Freestyle, but next time we go to buy a car we will likely look for something that gets much better fuel economy. I just wish something roomy like the Freestyle was available with a diesel engine that allowed it to get 30mph on the highway. I don't see why this isn't possible with some diesel cars getting 50mpg on the highway.
- Chad
my explorer is 6 years old, has 83k on it averaging 16 mpg and runs great.
i am keeping it and bought a sedan with a large trunk.
The '01 Saab 9-5 wagon with automatic gets slightly worse MPG than my '05 Freestyle 2wd. ....www.fueleconomy.gov database..... I don't understand why there are some Freestyles (especially AWD versions) that don't get good MPG. I have elaborate theories why some don't, some which sound more like they come from Mel Gibson's character in "Conspiracy Theory, 1997", which in my case involve manufacturing variations and the weakness in the CVT design to fail to control steel belt tension nominal levels. Don't know for sure, but I have some evidence of this. The low MPG in some Freestyles appears to be real, as it affected the first Freestyle that Consumer Reports got a hold of for their first test of it, reporting 12 MPG then! Do you think Ford would ever admit this? Yeah, right. Related conspiracy theory: Ford quit using the CVT because of this design performance weakness in some percentage of vehicles.
Amen to that.
unless you really, reallly need AWD, why would you not buy an Odyssey or Sienna
You can even get AWD on a Sienna, though you'll have to take the run-flats along with it.
We like our Forester, but it would be nice if Subaru also offered their Exiga here, i.e. a small minivan to compete with the Mazda5 and Kia Rondo.
What is my big SUV worth?
$2000 less than it was worth last week, and probably $2000 more than it will be worth next week. :sick:
I'm kind of surprised. I guess they have to market it to people who are immune to high gas prices.
Kia did miss the boat by 10 years on this one, though.
As gas prices started climbing through the roof, my desire to drive the V8 started diminishing. However, I heard an interesting radio show, that unless you're dumping the truck/suv for a very cheap car, (Fit, Yaris, Versa, Aveo, etc), you will not be saving any money, as the savings in gas are outweighed by the depreciation in the vehicle.
Further, if you go from a truck/suv into a compact, or sub-compact vehicle, you are losing the function of the truck/suv that you purchased in the first place.
It is better to be light on the pedal of the truck/suv, and eek out the best mileage possible, presuming one has already paid for the vehicle.
Depends on how many miles you drive. You may end up saving thousands of dollars per year by unloading the SUV, so even if you lose $5000 in selling the SUV, you'll make that up in a couple of years in gas savings, again, depending on the miles you drive, the price of gas, and the MPG difference of the new car.
I think the people complaining the loudest are the ones that didn't need a large SUV in the first place.
Folks who tow boats and really haul heavy loads will just grin and bear it. In fact I bet they'll be happy when the posuers trade down and lower demand for oil, dropping prices further.
Call it a middle weight, I suppose.
Add to that the rule of thumb to keep your trailer to 85% of max limit for extended towing. Go to the RV boards and you'll see tons of threads where the old timers point out that even some tent trailers are over the limit of the V-6's towing them.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
I kind of like the styling, but it's definitely form over function.
My wife thought it looked like an egg and never even sat inside.
The CVT and fuel efficiency appealed to me, but we were shopping for her car, so we never even drove the Rogue. I did sit in one at a car show.
The Murano is better sized, but to be honest I think if I had to buy a Nissan it would be a Versa with the 6 speed manual transmission, or maybe an Altima.
I read that the Traverse will get 288hp with the optional dual exhaust, plus the tow rating was just increased.
The CX9 supposedly got a trip computer standard, which to me is a must-have.
What else is new?
There are some new kids on the playground. Journey, Flex, yada yada. I'm sure everyone agrees those are upgrades. :P