Another comparison won by the CX-9!
http://www.cars.com/go/crp/buyingGu...tory=cc_rowCrossover&subject=stories&year=New
http://www.cars.com/go/crp/buyingGu...tory=cc_rowCrossover&subject=stories&year=New
It seems fair, but I think the Buick Enclave ( similar to the Arcadia ) would beat the CX-9 in a heads up test...
I still find it hard to believe that people find these unusually hard seats comfortable...
Go out and test drive the 2. The Enclave is slower, has terrible handling, crappy brakes and on top of it all, that transmission. What a pile of Junk. Maybe you missed the endless bad reviews on the Edge/MKX. You know, the same Transmission in the Enclave that the Edge uses. Terrible.
I'm an ex college football player and there is nothing wrong with the seats. In fact, my dad has the XC90 and Volvo always has great seats and I think the CX-9 seats are just as good if not better.
Enjoy your GM pile of junk. I am still waiting for 1 comparison article where the Outlook/Acadia/Enclave comes out on top. Waiting..........
Go out and test drive the 2. The Enclave is slower, has terrible handling, crappy brakes and on top of it all, that transmission. What a pile of Junk. Maybe you missed the endless bad reviews on the Edge/MKX. You know, the same Transmission in the Enclave that the Edge uses. Terrible.
I'm an ex college football player and there is nothing wrong with the seats. In fact, my dad has the XC90 and Volvo always has great seats and I think the CX-9 seats are just as good if not better.
Enjoy your GM pile of junk. I am still waiting for 1 comparison article where the Outlook/Acadia/Enclave comes out on top. Waiting..........
Okay, I have to chime in. As someone who is considering both the CX-9 and Enclave, I have to say the Lambdas are far from "piles of junk". You and satwar seem to be operating under the delusion that this is 1995 and Japanese vehicles are still statistically much more reliable than their American counterparts. The difference is very small according to Consumer Reports (although it depends on the make/model). Mazdas haven't typically had very high reliability, so you need to get off your high horse. (In fact, some sources such as JD Powers give Buick higher marks).
As for the bad reviews on the Edge/MKX, they have nothing to do w/ the Outlook/Acadia/Enclave. The Ford/Lincoln have poorly sorted suspensions, very little interior space given their weight (no 3rd row), and subpar interior fit and finish. While they do share a transmission, the programming is different. GM has issued 1 update for it already, but admits it's not perfect just yet and is planning another update next month which should cure the shifting issues some owners are experiencing. FWIW, GM supplies BMW w/ their auto transmissions, so they are very knowledgeable in this area. They clearly tuned the transmission to attain the best fuel economy numbers, which hurt performance slightly.
Regarding the Enclave's "terrible handling" and slow acceleration, I haven't seen any figures/comparison tests for the Enclave yet. Care to post your source? The skidpad performance results between the two is nearly identical (Acadia vs. CX-9) according to the MotorTrand test. In terms of braking, Car and Driver measured 167' in 70-0 braking for the Acadia, which is phenomenal. It scored less well in the MotorTrend test, but again, the Outlook did better overall in braking than the CX-9 in the Consumer Reports test, so I would hesitate to say the CX-9 is superior. As for accleration, the difference in acceleration figures for the CX-9 & Acadia from 0-60mph & in the 1/4 mile was .1 of a second in MotorTrend! The difference was the same in Consumer Reports test of the Outlook vs. CX-9. Not a significant difference and something that won't be an issue in 2009 when the Lambda triplets get Direct Injection and around 300hp.
Where does the Acadia/Outlook/Enclave really shine? Refinement. They are more quiet (especially the Buick), ride smoother, and are able to haul more people and cargo. I'm sorry you're so biased your unable to see the facts. The CX-9 is a great vehicle, but it's not the only viable choice out there. For the record, I realize this is a CX-9 forum, so it's only natural for people to prefer the Mazda, but for those of you looking for less biased feedback/comparison between the CX-9 and the Enclave, check out the following links:
http://forums.thecarlounge.net/zerothread?id=3322269
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=708973
http://www.flyertalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=715523
Any chance you work for GM? Sounds similar to most GM apologists.
No, I don't work for GM. In fact, I've never even owned a GM vehicle, but thanks for showing you need to resort to personal attacks instead of just substantiating your claims.
Have you driven the Acadia/Enclave and the CX-9? Most on this board have when buying our CX-9s. The Acadia/Enclave weren't much different than a new Tahoe. Was the 3rd row more comfortable, yes, it was. Am I driving from the 3rd row though?? No. I'm driving the car. For times when we do need the 3rd row, kids fit fine and I've had 2 adults back there with no issues as well. If you want a vehicle that holds 7-8 people comfortably, hauls as much crap as you can put into it and tow a boat, go buy a Surburban, Expedition or Excursion. Does the Acadia have more room behind the 3rd row, yes, but not that much that it was noticable. I've been able to fit golf clubs and suitcases behind the 3rd row with no problem.
Yes, I have driven them both extensively. I realize the CX-9 is a bit more nimble/fun to drive (it should be, it's smaller and lighter), but these are family vehicles, not sports sedans/coupes. Passenger and cargo space are probably of greater importance to most people out there. Judging by the sales numbers of the Acadia vs. the CX-9, I'd say many agree.
If you sit in the driver seat in a GT CX-9 and then a Acadia/Enclave, there's NO comparison. GM still has their infamous plastic look. I don't care how much "refinement" or "quietness" you claim there is, what tests show that? You say you want test results on handling and acceleration. The Enclave is heavier than the other 2 lambdas and acceleration is average in those models. The Motor Trend CX-9 acceleration test is the slowest time out there. Most other tests have the CX-9 0-60 anywhere from 7.7-7.9. Car and Driver I believe got 7.7 from what I remember.
Most people seem to quite like the interiors of the Lambdas, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. The CX-9 interior isn't so special either. I still see cheap looking plastic covering the pillars and center console. Neither are an Audi in terms of interior quality. As for acceleration, C&D got 7.8 seconds 0-60 for a FWD CX-9, they also managed 8.1 seconds for a loaded AWD Acadia, so big deal. FWIW, Consumer Reports times were almost identical to the MotorTrend test for both the Acadia and CX-9.
If you think the software updates are going to fix that Ford/GM 6 speed auto, then maybe you are the dillusional one. The Asin sourced 6spd in the CX-9/Veracruz is far above the GM unit. The fact there is in the articles, read the magazines, writeups. As I mentioned before, I haven't seen one comparison article where the Acadia/Enclave comes out on top.
Obviously you don't know that much about modern automobiles. Everything is electronically controled (e.g. drive by wire). If I were you I would be more worried about your Ford-sourced engine than I would GM's 6-speed auto. As for comparisons, again, check Consumer Reports and get back to me.
The Enclave should be in an article soon, but going against competitors like Mercedes, Audi, etc. You think they are going to win that comparo? The Enclave is more expensive than the CX-9.
The Enclave doesn't compete w/ those vehicles (that's Cadillac). Maybe the Acura MDX, but the rest of the makes you listed are priced MUCH higher than the Enclave. The Enclave is actually only a few hundred dollars more than a comparable Acadia, and $2-4k more than the CX-9. Not a huge difference IMO
Who cares about 2009?? The 08 CX-9 will have 270hp with less weight than the Lambdas and Direct Injection to soon follow as well. The point will be mute when GM finally gets around to producing a 21st century engine.
The point is that, in roughly 12 months time, GM will have an engine that gets better fuel economy and provides quicker acceleration than the CX-9's engine. Even the modest increase for 2008 won't be enough to make the lighter CX-9 quicker and no one really knows for sure when exactly Mazda will incorporate DI.
I could go one by one and address each of your statements, but what's the point? You obviously love your CX-9, and for the record, I never stated you shouldn't. I never once called it a steaming pile of junk and carried on ad nauseum about how inferior it is. All I did was offer up an opinion that even though the CX-9 is nice, it's not the only viable choice out there for consumers. It's obvious you are the one that has issues w/ GM, so I can see why you're so unwilling to objectively look at their newer vehicles such as the Lambdas.
FWIW, I've lurked on here for a few months to gather info. and feedback on the CX-9 since I am considering getting one, but didn't join until today. IMO, you represent everything that is wrong with this forum and are likely part of the reason why so few people post on here. Look at Stranger, he posts about his seat problem and he gets bashed to no end. God forbid someone say something even remotely negative about the infallable CX-9 around here.
Anyway, enjoy your CX-9. I sure hope I don't run into any CX-9 owners on the road if I end up getting the Enclave. I now know better than to try to keep up with them in the twisties. Even though MT says they have the same slalom/skidpad figures, I'll have to realize I just drive a crappy GM that will probably spin out of control or roll over if driven with even the least bit of aggression. I'll also excercise caution when attempting to pass one on the road due to the horrible GM transmission.....afterall, that .1 second difference 0-60 & in the 1/4 mile really does make a HUGE difference.
I have driven the Cx-9 and the Acadia, both are great vehicles, but i am going with the Cx-9. I have had plenty of GM cars in the past, and have grown tired of their slow shifting transmissions, and straining engines. I am in the minority when I say that I like the look of the Acadia better than the CX-9, but the quality of the interior and the superior drivetrain coupled with better handling are going to make my decision for me. For others the tranny and engine might be just fine.
As for Buick being at the top of the JD power list, I submit it is due to whom they cater to, the elderly, who love their floating boats. They are the last division catering to the land boat crowd. I love the elderly, but I wouldn't let them pick out my woman, cars, or electronics. Not to say that I don't like the Enclave, just a little too much wood for my taste.
As for Hyundai excelling in the JD power rating, it doesn't take much to impress people who last week were driving a Escort.
............. You and satwar seem to be operating under the delusion that this is 1995 and Japanese vehicles are still statistically much more reliable than their American counterparts. The difference is very small according to Consumer Reports (although it depends on the make/model). Mazdas haven't typically had very high reliability, so you need to get off your high horse.............
[/url]