Don't start this argument again Juice. That "10+" extra cubic feet of cargo space only with all seats down. Cargo space is slightly less and is nowhere near as useful behind the 3rd row as the Suburban offers. Trust me, as I've easily piled our luggage into the Yukon only to have to fiddle, re-load and organize to transport it in a Sienna rental. Plus, large dog crates won't fit in the back of a Sienna without leaving 2 kids at home.
The only one "arguing" is you, and axtieria wasn't the one who "started it," I was. The poster didn't give specifics on what they carry, mentioned nothing of large dog crates or how many kids they toted. All I did was suggest alternatives, and don't recall needing anyone's approval in doing so in the Member Agreement at Edmunds. Sure, as the owner of a Suburban, they may certainly like the cargo/seating layout they currently have, no doubt. Checking out your options is a smart thing to do when spending this much money, however! That's all I wanted them to do.
To the original poster, if interested (and you may not be), check out the SUVs vs. Minivans forum. To do so, click this link, it will take you directly to it.
How quickly things change in the crossover world - a year ago when it was the hottest site around, you'd get strung up for mentioning the "m" word. Now you get strung up for saying minivans may not be perfect for everyone. I was responding to Juice (ateixera) and made no reference or disrespect to your post so please stand down to alert level yellow. This was a joke referring to an old very gentlemanly disagreement we had between the two of us long ago, when I was still seriously considering the AWD Sienna. BTW, Juice and I are close - he even knows how much weight I've lost in the past 3 months so I'm sure he didn't need anyone to come to his defence. I was trying to be helpful, in part because as you say, the OP hasn't told us how many passengers and what gear they would be hauling. If he requires 3 rows and a long cargo area, my comments will hopefully be helpful. If he doesn't, I don't think I did any harm. For the record, we personally want AWD and I have lamented here before that I wish there were more AWD minivan options. The Sienna is the only deal in town, and up here in Canada models and options are limited and pricing exhorbitant. That's why I didn't get one as our city family hauler, well, that and the fact my wife doesn't want a minivan.
Yep - I've posted here for about 4 years now; I remember when this bad boy got started! No disrespect intended; I just didn't want someone else taking my heat!
I love minivans. There, I said it. I'm still a man. I sometimes drive my '05 F150 work truck, so my manhood is intact. However, I also love my '05 Freestyle (similar to the current TaurusX) because it is like a minivan without being a minivan. Very roomy. Great MPG. I can stealthily drive the Freestyle, a crossover that handles better than minivans, with almost as much utility. Nobody suspects I'm a minivan lover.
It doesn't count without those loveable minivan doors. :P
We may downsize to a *gasp* hatchback on our next ride though. Maybe Nissan will remake the Axxess by then. There's been a minivan here for two decades now (well, one per decade).
I drive a "sissy import sedan" (Accord 4-cyl) and manage to be a man. I learned to parallel park and maneuver in a minivan, and manage to be a man.
If anyone would like to challenge that based on the fact that I'm pro-minivan, meet me in the back-alley and we'll fight. I'll bring 6 of my large friends, since we'll all fit in the Odyssey. You can bring 4 big ones and a couple of kids in your crossover. I like my odds. :P
I drive a Taurus X for the same reason as coldcranker.
I love the utility of a wagon or minivan with car line handling and reasonable gas mileage. The T-X slightly removes some of the stigma for a guy. I call it the "Daddy-wagon".
Oh, and the Taurus X is a super vehicle as well. Besides my family and kids loving to ride in the car, all my friends want to carpool with me when we go mountain biking. I can get six people and six big bikes on the car (four in back, two on top).
thegraduate said: "...You can bring 4 big ones and a couple of kids in your crossover...."
Thats the thing about the Freestyle and TaurusX. That rear-most seat third seat is usable by anyone under 6' tall. I've used mine that way. It really is 7-passenger.
For the OP's purposes, he's looking to downsize without truly downsizing, so my original response was appropriate, me thinks.
Plus, I can carry a full sheet of 4'x8' plywood inside, hatch closed, and you can't. :P
Of course, you could probably tow my Sienna on a trailer, and there's no way I try the same.
grad: thanks for trying to defend me, but no need, volkov and I have had this gentlemanly debate for a while now, and he's always been civil and fair.
Having said that, a point volkov raised, here:
Cargo space is slightly less and is nowhere near as useful behind the 3rd row as the Suburban offers
Only reinforces the minivan suggestion. No crossovers can even come close to the amount of space behind the 3rd row of a van. Not even in the same league.
You may have to stack those suitcases, but you could probably fit several. Good luck getting ONE large suitcase behind a crossover's 3rd row.
With 60k on your clock on a 04 Sub, so what the warranty expires. Does vehicle run well, Maintain it. Does the vehicle serve it's purpose : Keep it. Your NEW vehicle gets old quickly too. The money you put into maintaining the existing vehicle will be much less than laying out new $$$ for a new one if you consider downpayment and monthly loan payments. But I'm sure you know that allready.
Honestly, with the pain going thru the economy, ask yourself: Do I NEED a New Vehicle. Besides, the deals will be sooooo much better in few months "down the road" [excuse the pun]. Car Manufacturers' tongues have only just begun to hang out of their mouths.
ateixeira said: "Only reinforces the minivan suggestion. No crossovers can even come close to the amount of space behind the 3rd row of a van. Not even in the same league."
My Freestyle can swallow up a suitcase behind the third row seats. I know some other (Suzuki XL7, Higlander, etc.) crossovers can't. Freestyle is very close to a minivan capacity. TaurusX is the same. Flex is even better. The Flex is really a crossover that nails minivans right in the diaper-bag.
"Chevy Traverse: 24.4 cubic feet Ford Flex: 20 cubic feet
So the Freestyle falls right in the middle of those two, but a Suburban owner would likely note the loss of space. "
A lot of reviews (including Edmunds) got the Freestyle cargo space wrong with the 3rd seat up. They were not counting the "well" into which the FS 3rd seat goes when it is flat. I never understood how they managed that, but there were two different values floating around, one at about 20 ft, and the other about 23 or 24 (IIRC).
I mention this because I suspect the Flex (like the FS and TX), have a significant "well" behind the 3rd seat - and some articles may not have that space included. So your flex may be about 24 Cu ft back there as well.
Thanks for the research. I formerly had a massive Windstar minivan, which I took the seats out of and created a vast empty volume. Very efficient, those box shapes. My '05 Freestyle is also a box shape, and the vehicle is 200" long, so its doing about all it can do within that length. I don't want a longer vehicle. The old Windstar came in at 202" long I think. Bigger vehicles are too hard to park. Also, the hood on a Freestyle is more substantial than on a minivan (Sienna or Windstar), so there is a better crash crumple zone there, too. Not having the short sloping hood as a minivan does will sacrifice a few inches, but the Freestyle compromises that in the direction of safety. The Flex is the same way, as you know that substantial snout (hood) takes up some length, but not much more. Take a look at the GMC Acadia (Traverse, Outlook, Enclave, too) an notice they could have maybe shortened the hood length a bit, allowing more passenger volume (cab forward), but its pretty good the way it is.
I'm not sure what methodology the EPA uses to measure space, though I thought they included any open spaces (not lidded/enclosed ones, AFAIK).
Weird thing is some models with moonroofs lose cargo capacity, and you don't often (*) pile things all the way up to the ceiling.
* - I say that but I did that on a 10-day trip I just took from DC to Florida and back. We had 2 cars but the group split up so I took 6 passengers and all their luggage (2 big bags, 4 carry-ons, 2 boxes, and a garment bag and most of it fit behind the 3rd row so everyone had room to stretch out). I'm pretty sure I would have need to put the bigs bags on the roof of any crossovers discussed here.
One of my neighbors just traded her Suburban (one generation back) for a new Chevy Traverse and she's already wondering about the cargo space. Our kids are on the same b-ball team so I'll check it out after the next game.
In about a year, I'll be passing my '01 Pathfinder 4WD down to my son, and I'm starting to think about what to replace it with. Part of the fun of car buying for me is taking about a year or so to analyze it to death, test drive several candidates, and talk on forums about it until I get carpal tunnel syndrome. I have virtually no brand loyalty, which makes it even more fun (although I do have a little brand disloyalty in certain cases). So let's get started.
I like the rough size of my Pathy, and I'm thinking new AWD crossover for my next vehicle. This will be my daily driver. I don't need a 3rd row - our family hauler is my wife's Acadia so if I end up with something with a 3rd row it will be folded flat 99% of the time. Don't suggest another Lambda - I like my Acadia but I'm looking for something a little smaller and more fun to drive. Probably won't go above $45k. My initial shopping list is as follows - purely based on looking at and sitting in vehicles at the auto show (no test drives yet):
1. Nissan Murano (seems like best overall value, like the styling but maybe not in love with it) 2. Acura MDX (styling has grown on me, heard it handles great but MPG seems unimpressive and not sure it's worth the extra $$$) 3. Several other vehicles vaguely on my radar, in no particular order: - Ford Edge (haven't heard much good about handling/driving characteristics) - Subaru Tribeca (odd interior and not in love with exterior) - 2010 Chevy Equinox or GMC Terrain (intriguing, but who knows at this point) - Hyundai Santa Fe (nice looking, good value, maybe too boring) - Lexus RX (fun factor probably not there) - Toyota Highlander (seems too much like a family hauler to me) - Toyota Venza (seems like a Camry wagon to me) - Mazda CX-7 and CX-9 (CX-7 too cramped, CX-9 too big - maybe I need a CX-8!) - Mitsubishi Endeavor (blah styling and will Mits go the way of Isuzu?) - Volvo XC90 (I doubt it - maybe the new XC60 or whatever it is) - Volkswagon Touareg (crappy reliability history)
If I may also suggest the Subaru Forester XT and the Mitsubishi Outlander XLS (instead of the Endeavor). Mitsubishi will not be leaving the US despite the rumors (pundits have been predicting the tri-diamonds departure for nearly a decade now). Both of the above are fun to drive and have decent interior space and utility. While neither of these CUV's can claim to have interior materials quality that could compete with an Acura, they compare nicely to that of the Murano (in my humble opinion).
In the end, however, I feel that a decently lengthy test-drive will become the determining factor. So, go drive 'em all. You have a year, right? :-)
I have a 07 Outlander and love it . Great car. This is my second Mitisi . I had a 02 Montero Spt and several Isuzu Troopers and my Outie is the tops!! Look at Mitishi , you will be surprised!!
After sitting in them at the auto show, I'm pretty sure I don't want to go as small as the RDX or X3. They just felt too cramped to me. I don't recall sitting in the Forester. I guess I'm probably looking mostly at midsize as opposed to compact CUVs. Even the Murano's relatively modest cargo space bothers me a bit.
Get an '09 TaurusX. Just the right size. Great fuel economy. Safety. Handling and steering is great. Ford doesn't advertise it much, though its one of the best things there is out there. My '05 Freestyle is a lower-powered version of it (and the TaurusX has better noise/vibration isolation engineering on the front suspension), and the Freestyle is very capable, smoothe, and quiet. Drive one and you'll see.
I doubt a big station wagon with 3 rows and "safe but bland" handling is what he's after. I'm a fan of the Ford, personally, but it doesn't sound like what he's after.
I'd suggest a Venza, by Toyota, but it likely won't be a great handler either.
Infiniti EX 35 might be snug, but it is worth "trying on." Also check out the FX 35; they start in the low 40s.
I have both a 07 Santa Fe SE AWD and an 08 Veracruz SE AWD after having had Isuzu Trooper/Ascender and Ford Freestyles. I checked out almost all the vehicles in your list, but the rebates and warranty won me over. I love both vehicles, but the Santa Fe has a smaller turning circle and shorter wheelbase, making it a bit easier to park. If I had to give one up, it would be the Veracruz as I love the storage compartments behind the back seats, something the 7 passenger Veracruz does not have. Just my 2 cents.
loach, If you don't want the TaurusX or similar, then you're on the wrong forum thread. Sounds like you want one of the mini-crossovers, something in the class of a Honda CRV or something. Note the title of this thread lists large crossovers only. Somebody who needs the roominess. The TaurusX (Freestyle body) is on the low end of the style scale in the list.
For small crossovers (not the subject of this thread really), I prefer the Outlander or CRV, or maybe the Edge for a little more size. The Escape Hybrid is a great rugged MPG crossover machine. New York taxi cab drivers prefer it because they are getting 30 MPG in city driving with it!
Um, no I think I'm in the right thread. It just looks like I've run into another oversensitive Freestyle owner who can't imagine why somebody wouldn't be considering his vehicle. The title of this thread is "Crossover SUV Comparison". And no I'm not looking for a mini crossover nor the largest crossovers. I'm looking for a midsize, which is why my frontrunner currently is the Murano.
Now you will tell me that the TX is midsize, which of course it is. But it's not the style I'm looking for. I already have a 3-row wagon-like CUV in the Acadia. Don't want or need another one.
The title of this thread is "Compare the CX-9, Veracruz, Pilot, Acadia, Outlook, Enclave and Freestyle". Your "Crossover SUV Comparison" is a new cross-link to it. See the first original post in this thread if you still don't get it.
The only reason we Freestyle/TaurusX owners like it is because we have experience with it directly and we've already compared crossovers. You obviously have no experience with the Freestyle/TaurusX. Your ignorance is understandable, since Ford has never really advertised the thing much. Flex and Edge got lots of flashy ads. Maybe you should just get the vehicle with the most flashy ads, since you don't seem to recognize substance over glitz.
You really just need to read lots of car reviews by experts. Its kind of like leaving skin disease to a dermatologist. If you're not an engineer, an auto company will, and often has, sold people substandard vehicles. Like a lot of people, you shouldn't try to pick a vehicle yourself, if you care about getting it right.
I'll second your comments. I fully expected to get the Acura MDX this time around, but after driving both for a full day, it wasn't even close. The Acadia's ride was much better, and everyone in the family liked it better. Don't get me wrong, the MDX is a very nice car, but we're getting the Acadia. For reference, I didn't even want to test drive the Acadia as I had such low expectations for the car. So to end up buying it is a true testament to the car. I may post back in 12 months with a different opinion, but for now I'm enjoying the Acadia quite a bit.
The title of this thread is "Compare the CX-9, Veracruz, Pilot, Acadia, Outlook, Enclave and Freestyle". Your "Crossover SUV Comparison" is a new cross-link to it. See the first original post in this thread if you still don't get it.
The original title of the thread 6800 posts ago is completely irrelevant. I did a search on "Crossover" and this is what came up. Don't like it? Talk to the moderator but it's clear this is a very broad thread. You're just trying to drive me off it because I don't have your favorite wagon on your short list.
The only reason we Freestyle/TaurusX owners like it is because we have experience with it directly and we've already compared crossovers. You obviously have no experience with the Freestyle/TaurusX. Your ignorance is understandable, since Ford has never really advertised the thing much. Flex and Edge got lots of flashy ads. Maybe you should just get the vehicle with the most flashy ads, since you don't seem to recognize substance over glitz.
The Freestyle was one of 4 vehicles I test drove when I bought my Acadia (Acadia, Outlook, CX-9 and Freestyle), so don't tell me I have no experience with it. I actually liked it - it just wasn't my top choice. I don't want it. Get over it.
You really just need to read lots of car reviews by experts. Its kind of like leaving skin disease to a dermatologist. If you're not an engineer, an auto company will, and often has, sold people substandard vehicles. Like a lot of people, you shouldn't try to pick a vehicle yourself, if you care about getting it right.
Not sure why you're directing that at me. I do read a lot of car reviews when I'm shopping, but I would never let any "expert" pick out my vehicle. Instead I use them as tools to help narrow the field and identify vehicles I should drive.
loach, You have a strange attitude. Myself and others on this forum don't care what you pick. Why assume we do? Thats odd. People choose vehicles for a lot of reasons. I chose mine because of chassis construction, fuel economy, safety, roominess, smoothe ride, quietness. In the extreme, others may choose a vehicle because they like it in red. Thats what the real world is like.
Myself and others on this forum don't care what you pick.
Then why are you so interested in running me out of your precious thread? Anyway, please feel free to have the last word. I won't waste your time or mine responding to any more of your posts.
I test drove an '09 Murano SL AWD today. My impressions:
1. Ride was a little stiffer than expected (wondering if the tires might be overinflated as I've had that happen at the same dealership when I bought my Pathfinder). 2. Visibility was better than I expected based on the reviews I read. Once mirrors and seats were adjusted to my liking I could see fine. My Acadia is harder to see out of than the Murano is. 3. I'm 6 ft even and I barely had enough headroom with the moonroof. Was fine for me but if I was 2 inches taller I probably would have had to tilt the seat back more.
Overall I liked it but I can't say it knocked my socks off. I'll definitely need to drive several other vehicles before I come to any decisions.
My feeling on the Murano is that it was smaller inside than I expected once I saw it up close from the outside if you get what I mean. I'm sure the less stylish but more boxy lines of the Pathfinder give a sense of much greater internal space.
Yes and no on the space - my '01 Pathfinder definitely has a lot more cargo space, but passenger space seemed prettty similar. The Murano's raked rear definitely eats up some cargo space. I don't have a sunroof in the Pathy so hard to compare headroom.
A reporter wants to interview someone who drives a 3-row crossover, has kids and plans to drive the vehicle to a vacation destination instead of taking an airplane. If this describes you, please respond to jfallon@edmunds.com by Monday, April 6, 2009 and indicate your vehicle's make and model. Thanks, Jeannine Fallon Coporate Communications Edmunds.com
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
Drove an '09 Santa Fe Limited today. The ride was smooth (probably smoother than the Murano I drove) and handling was OK but certainly not inspiring. Acceleration felt a little sluggish compared to the Murano (and compared to my '01 Pathfinder). The transmission seemed hesitant to downshift. I was impressed with the 3rd row for a vehicle this size. Not that 3rd row is a requirement for me on this vehicle, but I think it's dumb that if you want both leather and 3rd row, you HAVE to get either Nav or DVD ent. I think you can get the 3rd row without Nav/DVD in the SE trim but that's cloth seats only. The Infinity stereo sounded good once I adjusted it to my liking.
I'm also very surprised that a rear view camera is not an option on this vehicle, even with navigation. Having been spoiled with one on my Acadia, I don't think I'll own another CUV/SUV without one. Could always add an aftermarket double-din nav radio with backup camera - might be a fun project.
Right now though I think I'd rank the Murano ahead of the Santa Fe on my list. I definitely want to drive the Venza (ok who am I kidding - I want to drive about 5-6 more vehicles at least).
We have both a Ford Freestyle and a GMC Acadia in our family. And both met our buying criteria: excellent, class-leading vehicles made in the U.S. by U.S. companies.
Drive a Ford Edge if you want to sample a domestic, too.
What else?
You already mentioned the Venza. You may find it a bit soft, with isolated steering feel, as is common with many Yotas.
Maybe a Subaru Tribeca while you're at it. 5 passenger models actually cost less than the 3 row models, do, and the new 3.6l has more power and now runs on regular octane.
I definitely plan to drive the Edge, Venza and probably the Tribeca. The 2010 Outback looks intriguing as well, as does the 2010 Equinox. As an Acadia owner, I was also interested in the GMC Terrain until I saw the pictures - hate the squared off fender flares on it.
We're looking to buy something larger than our Saturn for a family of four. Plus, we like the versatility of compact SUV and don't want a minivan. We live in Michigan, so winter driving is a consideration. Southern Michigan though, so winters not too bad, but there is some snow, and occasionally a lot.
In many ways we prefer the Forester. Better visibility and manual available. But my wife thinks the Toyota will have better reliability and lower maintenance cost and longer life. True? Forester rides betters. Rav4 v6 is awesome and smoother than 4 cylinder, but that inflates price and lowers gas mileage. A little more legroom in Rav4. Don't like the side-swinging tale gate, but like the full spare.
What do you think? Pros/Cons? Is 4wd/Awd worth it? Occasionally it would be nice, but most of the time not necessary. Are Toyotas cheaper to own and maintain?
We have an 09 Forester X Limited (non-turbo) and an 07 Sienna V6 with that same 2GR engine and U151E transmission.
Subaru wins the AWD battle by a long shot. I looked in to the Sienna AWD and reviews for the AWD system were only so-so and it mandated run-flat tires I didn't want, so I passed. We previously had owned a 98 Forester and the AWD system on that was excellent (overall reliability was also).
CR rates them very close, RAV4 by a nose comparing automatics, but their 5 speed manual Forester averaged an amazing (for them) 25mpg. That's nearly as good as the Escape hybrid's 26mpg, and much better than either with automatic.
I don't like the swing-out door on the RAV4 - you need a lot of room to open it plus it opens the wrong way (blocking the curb). That forced us to look at a Sienna and a Highlander.
Maintenance costs should be about the same. We actually got a Chase Subaru card and you can earn Subaru Bucks to pay for service, so to be honest I'm actually more concerned about the Sienna in that regard.
The V6 is a gem, the best selling point when we got our van. Love it. Fast, yet efficient. It made Ward's 10 best engines list and for good reason.
Surprisingly, though, the 4EAT on the Subaru is actually a lot more responsive than the 5EAT on our Sienna, which hesistates a bit to drop a gear. So the Forester responds sooner but the Sienna is quicker once you get going.
I'd say get a Forester and then sign up for a Chase Subaru credit card to hedge your bets and offset any fears of higher service costs, but IMHO that's a myth.
If you do get the RAV4, get the V6, which is nearly as efficient at the 4 banger yet more powerful. It should be a hoot to drive. CR actually rated the Forester XT (turbo) higher than the RAV4 V6, FWIW, but no manual is available on that model.
We've been happy with our '06 RAV4 V6. Happy enough, in fact, that we just traded it on an '09. I like the Forester as well, and considered it both times while shopping, but for what we were looking for the RAV4 still had the better combination of features, power/fuel economy and utility. I'm no fan of the rear door either - a hatch would be better in just about every way - but it was far from a deal-breaker, given the overall package, and it's not that hard to live with.
The Toyota has handled everything three Canadian winters could throw at it and I'm pleased with its AWD performance (and I came from a Subaru before it, so I've tried both). The penalty for AWD on the RAV4 is so low (1-2 mpg) that I wouldn't even consider going with FWD in a northern climate.
I don't know about in the US, but in Canada the Forester would cost more to maintain simply because its service schedule requires more frequent servicing than the RAV4. However, this isn't in itself a good reason to choose one vehicle over another, in my opinion. I'd rather pay more to maintain the vehicle I actually prefer to drive than save on service but regret the purchase. Both Toyota and Subaru are known for a quality, long-lasting product. I'd recommend going with the one that suits you and your wife better without being overly concerned about a small difference in cost of ownership, if one even exists in your area.
Comments
To the original poster, if interested (and you may not be), check out the SUVs vs. Minivans forum. To do so, click this link, it will take you directly to it.
I was responding to Juice (ateixera) and made no reference or disrespect to your post so please stand down to alert level yellow. This was a joke referring to an old very gentlemanly disagreement we had between the two of us long ago, when I was still seriously considering the AWD Sienna. BTW, Juice and I are close - he even knows how much weight I've lost in the past 3 months so I'm sure he didn't need anyone to come to his defence. I was trying to be helpful, in part because as you say, the OP hasn't told us how many passengers and what gear they would be hauling. If he requires 3 rows and a long cargo area, my comments will hopefully be helpful. If he doesn't, I don't think I did any harm. For the record, we personally want AWD and I have lamented here before that I wish there were more AWD minivan options. The Sienna is the only deal in town, and up here in Canada models and options are limited and pricing exhorbitant. That's why I didn't get one as our city family hauler, well, that and the fact my wife doesn't want a minivan.
We may downsize to a *gasp* hatchback on our next ride though. Maybe Nissan will remake the Axxess by then. There's been a minivan here for two decades now (well, one per decade).
If anyone would like to challenge that based on the fact that I'm pro-minivan, meet me in the back-alley and we'll fight. I'll bring 6 of my large friends, since we'll all fit in the Odyssey. You can bring 4 big ones and a couple of kids in your crossover. I like my odds.
Tongue-in-cheek, of course.
TheGraduate.
I love the utility of a wagon or minivan with car line handling and reasonable gas mileage. The T-X slightly removes some of the stigma for a guy. I call it the "Daddy-wagon".
Oh, and the Taurus X is a super vehicle as well. Besides my family and kids loving to ride in the car, all my friends want to carpool with me when we go mountain biking. I can get six people and six big bikes on the car (four in back, two on top).
Thats the thing about the Freestyle and TaurusX. That rear-most seat third seat is usable by anyone under 6' tall. I've used mine that way. It really is 7-passenger.
Plus, I can carry a full sheet of 4'x8' plywood inside, hatch closed, and you can't. :P
Of course, you could probably tow my Sienna on a trailer, and there's no way I try the same.
grad: thanks for trying to defend me, but no need, volkov and I have had this gentlemanly debate for a while now, and he's always been civil and fair.
Having said that, a point volkov raised, here:
Cargo space is slightly less and is nowhere near as useful behind the 3rd row as the Suburban offers
Only reinforces the minivan suggestion. No crossovers can even come close to the amount of space behind the 3rd row of a van. Not even in the same league.
You may have to stack those suitcases, but you could probably fit several. Good luck getting ONE large suitcase behind a crossover's 3rd row.
HYSTERICAL - it's the same umbrella!
Honestly, with the pain going thru the economy, ask yourself: Do I NEED a New Vehicle. Besides, the deals will be sooooo much better in few months "down the road" [excuse the pun]. Car Manufacturers' tongues have only just begun to hang out of their mouths.
My Freestyle can swallow up a suitcase behind the third row seats. I know some other (Suzuki XL7, Higlander, etc.) crossovers can't. Freestyle is very close to a minivan capacity. TaurusX is the same. Flex is even better. The Flex is really a crossover that nails minivans right in the diaper-bag.
https://www.tituswillfordparts.com/images/FS Cargo Net.jpg
(I tried but it would not let me embed the pic in my post)
Pretty good for a crossover, but I'm not sure you could fit luggage for all 6/7 passengers.
I don't agree with the "close to minivan capacity" part, though:
Suburban: 45.8 cubic feet
Sienna: 44 cubic feet
Freestyle: 22.5 cubic feet
The van is close, but the Freestyle has about half the space.
Before volkov chimes in, the Suburban's cargo area has a longer floor than either.
Feel free to compare other crossovers...I'm tired of Googling them for now.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=132786/pageId=149- 505
Chevy Traverse: 24.4 cubic feet
Ford Flex: 20 cubic feet
So the Freestyle falls right in the middle of those two, but a Suburban owner would likely note the loss of space.
Ford Flex: 20 cubic feet
So the Freestyle falls right in the middle of those two, but a Suburban owner would likely note the loss of space. "
A lot of reviews (including Edmunds) got the Freestyle cargo space wrong with the 3rd seat up. They were not counting the "well" into which the FS 3rd seat goes when it is flat. I never understood how they managed that, but there were two different values floating around, one at about 20 ft, and the other about 23 or 24 (IIRC).
I mention this because I suspect the Flex (like the FS and TX), have a significant "well" behind the 3rd seat - and some articles may not have that space included. So your flex may be about 24 Cu ft back there as well.
Weird thing is some models with moonroofs lose cargo capacity, and you don't often (*) pile things all the way up to the ceiling.
* - I say that but I did that on a 10-day trip I just took from DC to Florida and back. We had 2 cars but the group split up so I took 6 passengers and all their luggage (2 big bags, 4 carry-ons, 2 boxes, and a garment bag and most of it fit behind the 3rd row so everyone had room to stretch out). I'm pretty sure I would have need to put the bigs bags on the roof of any crossovers discussed here.
One of my neighbors just traded her Suburban (one generation back) for a new Chevy Traverse and she's already wondering about the cargo space. Our kids are on the same b-ball team so I'll check it out after the next game.
I like the rough size of my Pathy, and I'm thinking new AWD crossover for my next vehicle. This will be my daily driver. I don't need a 3rd row - our family hauler is my wife's Acadia so if I end up with something with a 3rd row it will be folded flat 99% of the time. Don't suggest another Lambda - I like my Acadia but I'm looking for something a little smaller and more fun to drive. Probably won't go above $45k. My initial shopping list is as follows - purely based on looking at and sitting in vehicles at the auto show (no test drives yet):
1. Nissan Murano (seems like best overall value, like the styling but maybe not in love with it)
2. Acura MDX (styling has grown on me, heard it handles great but MPG seems unimpressive and not sure it's worth the extra $$$)
3. Several other vehicles vaguely on my radar, in no particular order:
- Ford Edge (haven't heard much good about handling/driving characteristics)
- Subaru Tribeca (odd interior and not in love with exterior)
- 2010 Chevy Equinox or GMC Terrain (intriguing, but who knows at this point)
- Hyundai Santa Fe (nice looking, good value, maybe too boring)
- Lexus RX (fun factor probably not there)
- Toyota Highlander (seems too much like a family hauler to me)
- Toyota Venza (seems like a Camry wagon to me)
- Mazda CX-7 and CX-9 (CX-7 too cramped, CX-9 too big - maybe I need a CX-8!)
- Mitsubishi Endeavor (blah styling and will Mits go the way of Isuzu?)
- Volvo XC90 (I doubt it - maybe the new XC60 or whatever it is)
- Volkswagon Touareg (crappy reliability history)
Thoughts? Suggestions?
Mitsubishi will not be leaving the US despite the rumors (pundits have been predicting the tri-diamonds departure for nearly a decade now).
Both of the above are fun to drive and have decent interior space and utility. While neither of these CUV's can claim to have interior materials quality that could compete with an Acura, they compare nicely to that of the Murano (in my humble opinion).
In the end, however, I feel that a decently lengthy test-drive will become the determining factor. So, go drive 'em all. You have a year, right? :-)
Think small and sporty, some ideas:
Saturn Vue Redline
Subaru Forester XT (turbo)
Acura RD-X
BMW X3
Practical is fine but you already have a Lambda, have some fun too!
I'd suggest a Venza, by Toyota, but it likely won't be a great handler either.
Infiniti EX 35 might be snug, but it is worth "trying on." Also check out the FX 35; they start in the low 40s.
For small crossovers (not the subject of this thread really), I prefer the Outlander or CRV, or maybe the Edge for a little more size.
The Escape Hybrid is a great rugged MPG crossover machine. New York taxi cab drivers prefer it because they are getting 30 MPG in city driving with it!
Now you will tell me that the TX is midsize, which of course it is. But it's not the style I'm looking for. I already have a 3-row wagon-like CUV in the Acadia. Don't want or need another one.
The only reason we Freestyle/TaurusX owners like it is because we have experience with it directly and we've already compared crossovers. You obviously have no experience with the Freestyle/TaurusX. Your ignorance is understandable, since Ford has never really advertised the thing much. Flex and Edge got lots of flashy ads. Maybe you should just get the vehicle with the most flashy ads, since you don't seem to recognize substance over glitz.
You really just need to read lots of car reviews by experts. Its kind of like leaving skin disease to a dermatologist. If you're not an engineer, an auto company will, and often has, sold people substandard vehicles. Like a lot of people, you shouldn't try to pick a vehicle yourself, if you care about getting it right.
The original title of the thread 6800 posts ago is completely irrelevant. I did a search on "Crossover" and this is what came up. Don't like it? Talk to the moderator but it's clear this is a very broad thread. You're just trying to drive me off it because I don't have your favorite wagon on your short list.
The only reason we Freestyle/TaurusX owners like it is because we have experience with it directly and we've already compared crossovers. You obviously have no experience with the Freestyle/TaurusX. Your ignorance is understandable, since Ford has never really advertised the thing much. Flex and Edge got lots of flashy ads. Maybe you should just get the vehicle with the most flashy ads, since you don't seem to recognize substance over glitz.
The Freestyle was one of 4 vehicles I test drove when I bought my Acadia (Acadia, Outlook, CX-9 and Freestyle), so don't tell me I have no experience with it. I actually liked it - it just wasn't my top choice. I don't want it. Get over it.
You really just need to read lots of car reviews by experts. Its kind of like leaving skin disease to a dermatologist. If you're not an engineer, an auto company will, and often has, sold people substandard vehicles. Like a lot of people, you shouldn't try to pick a vehicle yourself, if you care about getting it right.
Not sure why you're directing that at me. I do read a lot of car reviews when I'm shopping, but I would never let any "expert" pick out my vehicle. Instead I use them as tools to help narrow the field and identify vehicles I should drive.
Then why are you so interested in running me out of your precious thread? Anyway, please feel free to have the last word. I won't waste your time or mine responding to any more of your posts.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
1. Ride was a little stiffer than expected (wondering if the tires might be overinflated as I've had that happen at the same dealership when I bought my Pathfinder).
2. Visibility was better than I expected based on the reviews I read. Once mirrors and seats were adjusted to my liking I could see fine. My Acadia is harder to see out of than the Murano is.
3. I'm 6 ft even and I barely had enough headroom with the moonroof. Was fine for me but if I was 2 inches taller I probably would have had to tilt the seat back more.
Overall I liked it but I can't say it knocked my socks off. I'll definitely need to drive several other vehicles before I come to any decisions.
If this describes you, please respond to jfallon@edmunds.com by Monday, April 6, 2009 and indicate your vehicle's make and model.
Thanks,
Jeannine Fallon
Coporate Communications
Edmunds.com
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
I'm also very surprised that a rear view camera is not an option on this vehicle, even with navigation. Having been spoiled with one on my Acadia, I don't think I'll own another CUV/SUV without one. Could always add an aftermarket double-din nav radio with backup camera - might be a fun project.
Right now though I think I'd rank the Murano ahead of the Santa Fe on my list. I definitely want to drive the Venza (ok who am I kidding - I want to drive about 5-6 more vehicles at least).
What else?
You already mentioned the Venza. You may find it a bit soft, with isolated steering feel, as is common with many Yotas.
Maybe a Subaru Tribeca while you're at it. 5 passenger models actually cost less than the 3 row models, do, and the new 3.6l has more power and now runs on regular octane.
Keep us posted.
I test drove one but hated the electric PS. This coming from a Toyota owner.
In many ways we prefer the Forester. Better visibility and manual available. But my wife thinks the Toyota will have better reliability and lower maintenance cost and longer life. True? Forester rides betters. Rav4 v6 is awesome and smoother than 4 cylinder, but that inflates price and lowers gas mileage. A little more legroom in Rav4. Don't like the side-swinging tale gate, but like the full spare.
What do you think? Pros/Cons? Is 4wd/Awd worth it? Occasionally it would be nice, but most of the time not necessary. Are Toyotas cheaper to own and maintain?
We have an 09 Forester X Limited (non-turbo) and an 07 Sienna V6 with that same 2GR engine and U151E transmission.
Subaru wins the AWD battle by a long shot. I looked in to the Sienna AWD and reviews for the AWD system were only so-so and it mandated run-flat tires I didn't want, so I passed. We previously had owned a 98 Forester and the AWD system on that was excellent (overall reliability was also).
CR rates them very close, RAV4 by a nose comparing automatics, but their 5 speed manual Forester averaged an amazing (for them) 25mpg. That's nearly as good as the Escape hybrid's 26mpg, and much better than either with automatic.
I don't like the swing-out door on the RAV4 - you need a lot of room to open it plus it opens the wrong way (blocking the curb). That forced us to look at a Sienna and a Highlander.
Maintenance costs should be about the same. We actually got a Chase Subaru card and you can earn Subaru Bucks to pay for service, so to be honest I'm actually more concerned about the Sienna in that regard.
The V6 is a gem, the best selling point when we got our van. Love it. Fast, yet efficient. It made Ward's 10 best engines list and for good reason.
Surprisingly, though, the 4EAT on the Subaru is actually a lot more responsive than the 5EAT on our Sienna, which hesistates a bit to drop a gear. So the Forester responds sooner but the Sienna is quicker once you get going.
I'd say get a Forester and then sign up for a Chase Subaru credit card to hedge your bets and offset any fears of higher service costs, but IMHO that's a myth.
If you do get the RAV4, get the V6, which is nearly as efficient at the 4 banger yet more powerful. It should be a hoot to drive. CR actually rated the Forester XT (turbo) higher than the RAV4 V6, FWIW, but no manual is available on that model.
Good luck with either one.
The Toyota has handled everything three Canadian winters could throw at it and I'm pleased with its AWD performance (and I came from a Subaru before it, so I've tried both). The penalty for AWD on the RAV4 is so low (1-2 mpg) that I wouldn't even consider going with FWD in a northern climate.
I don't know about in the US, but in Canada the Forester would cost more to maintain simply because its service schedule requires more frequent servicing than the RAV4. However, this isn't in itself a good reason to choose one vehicle over another, in my opinion. I'd rather pay more to maintain the vehicle I actually prefer to drive than save on service but regret the purchase. Both Toyota and Subaru are known for a quality, long-lasting product. I'd recommend going with the one that suits you and your wife better without being overly concerned about a small difference in cost of ownership, if one even exists in your area.