Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
SUVs Crossover SUV Comparison
7122 messages, Last post on Nov 09, 2009 at 1:24 PM
You are in the SUVs Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
Replying to: baggs32 (Jan 27, 2008 12:08 pm) "Does anyone sit adults in the second row of these things for long trips the majority of the time they are driving it?" Yes it does matter. When your kid will be hitting back of your seat. The TX no longer fuel saver with new engine in there. So, why not buy bigger more comfortable CUV. About Flex: the interior looks same as TX. The second row moves same as TX, even seat same.The space behind third row looks same as TX. I have not measured with the tape. The very good CUV is Volvo. A lot space almost same as Acadia, rear smaller bottom part of the gate drops down, I liked it very much. ( I'm taking back what I said before about Volvo). But if you're willing to spent 45 grand or more for family CUV the Mercedes R-class will be one of the best choices. The interior is superior compare to any CUV, at same time conservative using high quality materials, even interior door handles feels like you're sitting in the sedan. There're no reasons to compare R-class to Q7, R has much, much better interior and space. Q7 is more like oversize Toureg.
|
|
|
Replying to: samf10 (Jan 27, 2008 1:25 pm) BTW - it's "hearse", I alluded to "Hearst" in my reply as he was a man of great wealth and taste in fine art from all era's, so calling it a "Hearst" could have been construed, while a stretch, as complimentary. As I mentioned I found the irony in the your statement and was just trying to point that out. as for funeral arrangements you'll need at least a lambda because everyone around here knows you'd never get a coffin in a FS/T-reX as been proven time and time again here in this forum it's just not big enough. bigger is better in that instance, but keep trying. it more looks the part anyway...LOL |
|
|
Replying to: samf10 (Jan 27, 2008 12:38 pm) Anyway, I priced a base Enclave CX, with the trailering package and delivery charges at 42665 before tax. I would have liked to include the backup camera, but it is part of a $4300 package only. If I buy the Enclave, I’ll probably get an aftermarket camera. The Highlander SR5 model (which adds the power drivers seat, 6 disc cd, auto rear liftgate, backup camera) priced out at 44,300 after adding trailering items and delivery charges, but before taxes. Of course, these are list prices, before incentives and dealer discounts. I know the Americans who read these posts will probably fall off their chairs, at how expensive vehicles are in Canada. I then went to a website that shows you (for a small fee) the Canadian retail and dealer cost prices for these vehicles (I’m not sure if it’s okay to mention the name of that site here, so I won’t). The difference between dealer cost and retail price on both vehicles is almost exactly $4000. I always go in with this information and tell the dealer I would be happy to allow them 25% of the difference, and usually end up negotiating it to around 30%. Hopefully that will work this time too. Our plans for the coming week are to take the Highlander and Enclave for a second test drive, plus either the Veracruz or CX9. I’ll let you know how it goes. |
|
|
Replying to: biscuit_xls (Jan 25, 2008 9:02 pm) I checked one out in person today at the DC Auto Show, ended up going a day later than planned, but I love auto shows and it's always worth going. Saw the paddle shifters you mentioned, though the steering wheel was locked at a weird angle so it was hard to get a good feel for their use. I think they would be great for the V6 since it's a 6 ratio traditional auto, I just thought it was a bit odd for a CVT to simulate gears, whatever the reasoning. They had 2 at the show, both V6s, though, no 2.4l w/CVT, bummer. The 3rd row seemed tiny to me. My kids are 8 and 5, and big for their age, but I wouldn't put them there. That's just me, FWIW. Fold them and the floor didn't seem totally flat. Yours looks better with that carpet there, at the show they take the mats out so they don't get stolen, so it looked unfinished. The tail gate idea is interesting, though it's a two step process to open it wide. I guess most of the time you'd just lift the hatch, and that lip would keep cargo from rolling out. Fair trade for the utility of a tail gate seat, I suppose. The wife wasn't a fan of the styling. She ruled it out right then and there. I checked it out anyway, though. (we're shopping for her, though) We had just come from the 09 Forester, they were indeed pretty close together, Mitsu right next to Subaru. Sadly, no STI was there to compare to the EVO on display. Any how, the moonroof is small compared to Subaru's. The Forester's opening is the same width but more than twice as long. Forester also had huge windows and the interior felt a lot airier, brighter. Best visibility in its class. Possibly the best visibility among any vehicle on the market. You see everything. I sat in the driver's seat and my 5 year old walked behind the car, and I could see his neck. In the Outlander I could only see his eyes, and he would disappear in the rear/side view in a blind spot. Not as bad as, say, the Rogue (Nissan should call it the Nissan Blindfold), which we also checked out, but not nearly as good visibility as the Forester. That was excacerbated by the black interior on the Outlander. It's just too much, black plastic all around, black leather, and then black carpeting. You feel like the Prince of Darkness. The audio gagdets and sub woofer made it feel more like a huge, black plastic boom box than a family vehicle. Your interior looks far better, is that Ivory though? I'd worry about stains if that's the case. Or is it just light gray? I popped the hood to check the engines (both V6s), and again the prop rods lose to the very nice and unique hood struts on the Forester. Outlander has more rear leg room, but the Forester's has improved as well. I measured the cargo bay, and was surprised at how narrow the cargo floor is on the Outlander - just 38" between the wheel wells. Length is good, about an inch more than the Forester, but the Outlander actually gives up a whopping 4 inches of cargo width to the smaller Forester due to wheel well intrusion. That was a big surprise. If it were for me, I'd test drive both. In fact, I probably still will, because I'm curious to test your opinion on the handling. Edmunds did rave about the Forester's handling, so it would be interesting to see which one drives better. I'll try to drive them on the same day.
|
|
|
We checked out a lot of these. I'll share some quick thoughts. Jeep Compass: felt tiny inside, with cheap materials. Needs a lot of improvement Jeep Patriot: see Compass. Rogue: terrible, just awful, visibility. What is it with these massive D-pillars? RAV4: an oxymoron - a big compact. Some visibility issues, gate blocks curb side. Sante Fe: roomy and may sneak on to our short list as a value-priced underdog. CR-V: roomy but has poor visibility. Wife found it ugly. RD-X: looks much nicer, but it seemed a bit small, like the CX7. We've already looked at and even driven the Vue, CX7, and a few others. Wife likes the Forester, RAV4, and Santa Fe, so we'll probably test drive those. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Jan 27, 2008 6:16 pm)  For some reason I never test drove or cross-shopped the Forester, I drove the Tribeca twice though and thought it was OK, a little overpriced...almost $10k more than my Outlander. The Forester looks like It doesn't have a lot of things I needed or wanted... Nav, Bluetooth, HID, 3rd row in a pinch, 18" wheels, Sirius radio. And some smaller points like Premium fuel vs. Regular for the Outlander. The auto tranny in the Subaru is only 4 speeds vs. 6 in the Outlander, etc. But I know how it is, if the wife likes the Subaru better you don't have a lot of choices. You should sneak out and test drive the loaded Outlander though, just for fun. It has so much technology you might not be able to appreciate it until you get used to it, I was lucky to have a saleperson that showed me all of the cool features. It's actually very simple to use. BTW, I added a wide-angle infrared rear view camera to mine so I have good vision out the back. Under $50 and it plays on the 7" DVD display when I put it in reverse. It even taps into the proximity grid built into the stock head unit. We have a pretty good Outlander forum (www.mitsubishiforum.com) for tech stuff like that.   
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: samf10 (Jan 27, 2008 12:38 pm) If you read that review the major factor that hurt the Outlander was pricing because they chose the highest level Outlander. Pricing was a whopping 25% of the evaluation, the cheapest car got the most points (100), and the Outlander got last. Choose a V6 4WD Outlander without Nav and it would have been the cheapest, which would have put it neck and neck with the RAV4 for 1st place. You really need to drive the vehicles. A review like that has so many subjective factors that it can become humorous why one vehicle wins over another. For example, they tout the RAV4 mileage, when in fact it was only 1mpg better than the Outlander. Go drive 'em all at least a couple of times.
|
|
|
Replying to: biscuit_xls (Jan 27, 2008 10:17 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: samf10 (Jan 27, 2008 12:38 pm) Car sites and magazines make living off car advertising and they are not always objective or consistent. I am more interested in ratings by real-world owners. Real-world owners don't market or sell cars, instead they buy them paying hard earned dollars, so I have more trust to a 100 of real people who bought a car and drive it for a few months, rather then to one magazine “expert”, who drives a brand new car from dealership just for an hour and who sometimes wants to please its biggest customer-advertiser. For instance the comparo you mention puts RAV4 and CR-V ahead of the Outlander, but the real world owners give the Outlander higher ratings consistently throughout all three major consumer rating sites: MSN Autos: 2007 Outlander - 9.5 2007 RAV4 - 8.6 2007 Honda CRV - 9.3 edmunds.com: 2007 Outlander - 9.2 2007 RAV4 - 8.9 2007 Honda CRV - 9.1 Yahoo Autos: 2007 Outlander - 4.5 2007 RAV4 - 3.5 2007 Honda CRV - 3.5
|
|
|
Replying to: baggs32 (Jan 27, 2008 12:08 pm) Ummmmmmm, yes. My wife sits back there all the time for trips longer than 30 minutes because she can watch TV while I drive. Never heard a complaint about comfort. We also loaded it up with 4 adults and 3 kids for a 1200 mile round-trip. I did hear complaints, but they were more of the "are we there yet?" variety after hour number 5.
|
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 GMC Acadia
2009 Mitsubishi Outlander
2010 Subaru Forester
2009 Hyundai Santa Fe
2009 Ford Taurus X
2011 Toyota RAV4
2010 Nissan Rogue
2010 Honda Accord Crosstour
2010 Dodge Journey
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
