Arcadia vs. Veracruz vs. CX-9 crossover comparison

[sranger]

I support my contrary opinion by quoting from the April 2007 CR Auto Issue about Predicted Reliability (average overall reliability as a percentage better or worse than the average of all cars):

Mazda: + 5 % (variability relatively small, comparable to Audi, Acura, Jaguar)
GMC: - 11 % (roughly twice the variability of Mazda)
Buick: -14 % (roughly 4 times the variability of Mazda)
Pontiac: -16 % (roughly 6 times the variability of Mazda)
Chevrolet: -21 % (roughly 4 times the variability of Mazda)
Saturn: -52% (roughly 4 times the variability of Mazda)
Cadillac: -52 % (roughly 6 times the variability of Mazda)
Hummer: -70 % (negligible variability)

Hence, my concern about the reliability of GM products. I'm not saying they can't do better (God can only help them if they don't), and maybe they are putting in an effort to do better. But when I have to put down serious money (CAN$50,000) for a vehicle, I want to feel assured that it's going to be worth it, and frankly GM doesn't do it for me.

I have never been a big GM fan. I was burned badly by them in the days before the lemon law existed. I have not owned one since. So, I am not going to even try and defend their quality record. Of course Mazda does not have a spotless record either...

My bother in law ownes a Chevy/Pontiac dealership so I can get one of these brands for a very good price ( real dealers cost which is thouands below invoice by the way... ). So yes the thought of buying a Enclave does bother me from a reliability stand point. It was one of the reasons why I chose the Mazda to start with. However, I am going to have to trade my CX-9 for somthing that is more comfortable to drive. I am not 100% sure it will be an Enclave but is very close to the CX-9 in looks, performance and features. I am trying to arrange a longer drive in it to see if it will truly be comfortable on longer drives.

 

[poof100]

I find it silly that me posting a comment directly related to the topic about my "opinion" of the CX-9 vs. the Enclave is some how bashing the CX-9 ( a vehicle that I own ), but bashing the GM products in an irrational manner is completely acceptable to poof100. It is obvious that he only want to hear ( or read ) what he wants to hear and the truth is of not concern.

It is obvious that he is upset that I keep posting about my negative experiance with the CX-9 and about problems that they might experiance if they purchase a CX-9. ( I.E. The NAV system )

Many of the thing ( not all ) are not somthing that you will easly notice in a short test drive. All I am doing is arming people with more information so that they can take a closer look at these issues that might or might not affect them.

P.S. I priced a Buick Enclave with roughly the same options as my CX-9. It's MSPR was only a couple of hundred dollars higher...

I'm not upset at all about your negative opinions towards the CX-9. You say that I have an irrational argument against the GM CUVs, but you continue to come on here and other forums and blast the CX-9 as being terrible and the seats are the worst things since a 50 Ford. You say the CX-9 was the worst purchase ever and for everyone to stay away from buying a CX-9. You had a unique experience with a seat defect. We get it already, enough.

Fact is, my bashing of the GM models are based on opinion backed up by facts. The Lambdas are too heavy, magazines confirm this. It's underpowered and not helped by the poor transmission and slow shift times. Experienced while test driving along with mentioned in articles as well. Buick quality, yes, they are new, but based on previous vehicles, it's not good. I'm tired of arguing about this, but my "irrational" bashing of the GM product is backed up by real world test driving along with comparison articles and magazine reviews.

As for the poor NAV unit in the CX-9, most of us WILL NOT argue against this point. I for one, bought a Garmin 660 instead. I knew the CX-9 NAV unit wasn't very good, plus I didn't need to spend the extra $2500 for it. I bought my GT without it, as others can as well. If you don't like the NAV unit or don't want it, easy decision, don't buy it with the car!

Hope your trade in goes well and your next CUV is more comfortable. Depending on the size you want, you might want to wait for the new EX35 from Infiniti that's coming out soon or the new Q5 from Audi.

 

[musicola]

Before we test drove anything, I was ready to buy the Outlook over the CX-9, based on specs. We liked the luggage room and REALLY liked the 2nd row captain's chairs and the access to the 3rd row. But then we went for a drive. Way too floaty and truck-like for me. Plus the interior plastic and carpeting looked very cheap compared to the Mazda.
As an aside, the Acadia was and still is selling like hotcakes around here with not much of a discount (Twin Cities, Minn.). GMC is very popular in these parts! Not as much with the Outlook. We considered the Outlook because the equivalent Acadia was gonna be at least $1,500 more.

 

[musicola]

One more thing -
Our 2004 Dodge Grand Caravan was rock-solid to 60,000 miles, although there were a couple recalls. Our CX-9 needed a new CD changer after two weeks. So we'll see how the CX-9 turns out, knock on wood! Can't really say statistically without at least a few hundred vehicles of data.