Edmunds CarPool

CX-9 is also getting an engine upgrade next year. Should make it an even more competitive vehicle in its segment. No word if the Edge will get the upgraded engine as well. There's always hoping.

It looks good, and the bumper isn't aiming for my neck. I like these things.

looks like a station wagon on the clear and the cream

"looks like a station wagon on the clear and the cream"
 
Pure comedy. Love it.

I saw one of these on the road the other day and I have to be honest, I was underwhelmed at the appearance. The first time I saw pics of the Enclave, I thought it was going to be the best looking Lambda vehicle. I take that back now. The Acadia has my new top spot.

the CX-9 is nice, but significantly smaller. Plus the ride has been deemed harsh with the 20" wheels. I see the CX-9 appealing to a younger crowd who is more concerned with handling than cargo or people space. If I want space and elegant styling I am taking a lambda.

ahightower - the lambda's have as much utility as the Tahoe/Yukon's of the world. You saw that a large trolley could be fitted in whilst having three rows of seats up and the third row is actually adult friendly - what utility does it lose?
  
GM has got in to the market fairly early with these large crossovers and they can improve the fuel economy further with diesel and hybrid versions. Lets just hope they continue to upgrade them rather than let the models languish and become uncompetitive in a few years.

I have to give GM some props here. These are sensible, attractive vehicles with enough differentiation so they don't seem simply "badge-engineered". They are perhaps a little bit on the large side, but if they get buyers weaned off the Tahoe and Suburban, then I'm all for it.
 
I did see an Enclave on the road the other day. It looks better in the pictures. There's a lot going on in the styling, and it seemed a bit massive in the daily commute.
 
Too bad Ford couldn't have done a better job differentiating between the Edge and MKX. These seem like also-rans against the GM offerings.

Karl,
 
Your analysis is spot on. However, if the coming diesel/hybrid versions of the big SUVs could match or exceed the MPG of the smaller car based crossovers, which one would you rather have.
 
I understand the new 4.4L GM diesel with over 300 HP and 500 ft-lbs of torque will be an option on the big rig SUVs. Say a Tahoe can get in the mid-twenties range (or higher) on the highway cycle and maybe in the lower twenties on the city cycle. That vehicle would trump the crossovers, I believe. Americans like mass, size and thrust.
 
Great topic, however.

Flic, I agree with you on the appearance. The first one of these I saw was at the NYAS and I didn't really care for the look. I had already looked at the Outlook and Acadia and was impressed by them - thought GM did a good job. Then I saw the Enclave and thought "what's the point?". It made me think of all the redundant vehicles from different divisions of GMs past - layer after layer of slightly different vehicles. I was hoping that this was one of the ways that GM had changed to better compete. That said, now that I have seen them in commercials and in photos like this one, it has grown on me some and I think i understand why it exists and what they intend to compete with. Time will tell but I think they probably made a good call by building it.
 
I personally would take one of the other two for my driveway though.

Is this the new Roadmaster/Vista Cruiser? Not a bad looking station wagon, if you like that sort of thing.

I saw and Enclave last week and it is indeed a beautiful vehicle, especially on the interior! A bit too large for my tastes, though, and looks too "grown up". I prefer the CX-9's smaller appearance, more "adventurous" styling, and sportier character.
 
pflyer, I think the crossovers will get even (marginal) better economy when fitted with diesel engines. In fact, when I first got to the US, I found it wierd that all these large vehicles had gas engines and wondered how owners could afford the fuel! Back in Africa, where SUVs are hugely popular amongst those who can afford them, every SUV is a diesel, which makes more sense because of their better economy and torque.....torque is far more important in this class than speed.....

I rode in the backseat of a CX-9 driven by one of my friends on the way to a Dodger game and back on June 30th (the San Diego Padres won 3-1 in 12 innings :o) ). I was quite impressed with the room offered--not just the legroom--in the third row.
 
Knowing the CX-9 is out there, I wouldn't even consider a Lamba vehicle.

I've driven all 3 Lamda's and they are great rides. Very roomy for most, but not quite enough leg room for me (I'm a very big and tall guy). I had an Outlook AWD model out for about 45 mins. On the freeway cruising at 71mph for about 10 miles with some up and down hills, it was averaging 27 MPG! That's damn good for such a big heavy vehicle.

Guy,
By "utility" I refer to towing/hauling. My understanding of the Lambdas and CX-9 are "minivan without the sliding doors". My point is, why not just get a minivan if passenger space and carlike driving dynamics are the most important factors? Or get a big SUV if you need people plus towing/hauling? These vehicles that try to be all things to all people usually end up compromised in every way. If your needs are within those limits, go for it.

"Knowing the CX-9 is out there, I wouldn't even consider a Lamba vehicle."
 
The Lambdas are still larger. If you want more 3rd row room and space behind the 3rd row the GM models are the best choice. Mazda gives you more sport and GM gives you more space.

ahightower, there are more people who don't want a minivan, than people who ever tow anything that a minivan can't. Towing capacity is not the primary reason SUVs sell so much more than minivans...

The I saw the Acadia and Outlook and they look sharp. The Buick is a strech "copy" version of a Lexus RX 350. You can tell by the flowing lines and grill. I agree the Mazda CX-9 is more like a sport version with less room. We forgot to mention Hyundai's Veracruz. Is the mix of the competition and they look sharp too. Full equip. undercuts the Buick price.

These new GM sorta-SUVs can fit a 4 x 8 sheet of plywood flat on the floor with the hatch closed; at least GMC is claiming that with their Acadia. 'Bout time one of these less-than-full-size SUVs had that capability.
 
Karl, any plywood-needing weekend projects lined up? ;)

1487, the Lambas are larger but wouldn't give me the all-around performance of the CX-9.

This trio is nice, but I have two issues:
 
1. They are expensive. Competitive with a CX-9 I guess but I can't afford that either. I can, however, afford a Town and Country or a Sienna with limited options.
2. There are three of them - four if you count the upcoming Chevy clone. IMHO, this is GM badge engineering at its worst. GM does not need four different versions of one vehicle. They are just throwing their marketing dollars away trying to build a brand image for the same car four different ways. An econo and lux version would have been fine.

"Towing capacity is not the primary reason SUVs sell so much more than minivans..."
 
My point exactly! Suburban/Tahoe moms get ridiculed for being too image conscious. In what way is the Lambda any better? It's the definition of "I should have a minivan, but I'm too vain to be seen in one." It's the ultimate poser vehicle. Taking the bones of a minivan, raising up the floor, and putting the back doors on hinges instead of sliders. Designed from the start to be LESS practical, in the name of style... (And as far as styling goes, they look a little bloated to me, but again, that's purely subjective.)
 
At least a real SUV has the goods to back up the look. Whether the marginal improvement in fuel economy is worth giving up the occasional heavy lifting ability, is a purely personal decision. I don't disagree that many folks will be well served by a crossover. But I don't believe they makes SUVs obsolete.
 
I dig 5-passenger crossovers. But if you really need three rows every day (i.e., more than two kids), I could only recommend a van, or a Suburban/ExpeditionEL if you need/want the extra hauling ability. A three-row crossover just doesn't make sense to me.

Ouch!
  
I didn't know there was going to be a fourth - same old same old with GM, I guess!?!
 
Is this to replace the outgoing Trailblazer?

rick,
 
IIRC, the Trailblazer will be replaced by the upcoming Chevy Lambda. I believe they're kicking around bringing back the Nomad name for it.

"However, if the coming diesel/hybrid versions of the big SUVs could match or exceed the MPG of the smaller car based crossovers, which one would you rather have?"
 
A good question. Normally it would be easy to say "Give me the car-based vehicle over the truck-based vehicle, all else being equal" simply because of the superior driving dynamics. But the latest GM SUVs drive awfully well, with no real "penalty" being paid for the truck-based architecture. If gas mileage between the Lambdas and SUVs were identical you'd be down to a SLIGHT driving advantage in the Lambdas versus a more than slight utility (tow/haul) advantage in the SUVs.
 
It would really come down to lifestyle. If you actually tow something the SUVs would smoke the Lambdas, if not it's a much closer call.
 
I'd probably go SUV (if we're talking the GM SUVs) even without my real need for tow/haul duty, just to know it's there when I MIGHT need it (and otherwise I'm getting good mileage and nearly car-like ride/handling anyway).

This debate raises an interesting question. I think it's safe to say that people who buy crossovers buy them for image.......a minivan could serve them better but it doesn't "look cool". Crossovers are now selling well, but when the public eventually realises they're glorified minivans without sliding doors, would they sell as well?
 
The point I'm trying to make is that, there is an image issue with a real SUV like the Tahoe because we all know what it's capable of. Now, does driving a Tahoo look-alike (such as an Outlook) that has little of the Tahoe's abilities provide the same macho image?
 
Personally I'd do exactly as Karl said: either buy a real SUV even if I don't need the towing or off-road ability, or buy a real minivan like the Sienna, Mazda 5, Grand Caravan or Quest. (The Odyssey is ugly.) [Although I must admit I like the Mazda CX vehicles too.....]

I think that I think styling is a much bigger factor in purchasing decisions that most people here, and that towing capacity is a much smaller factor than most people here.
 
The vast majority of buyers determine utility by seats + cargo room, and the ability to drive on adventure roads made of dirt and rocks. And they want to look cool. We all go to great lengths to look cool, like wearing a button up shirt and a belt when leaving the home instead of a Star Trek uniform - which, hypothetically speaking, my friend's friend told me is much more comfortable and practical. I don't know how an Explorer looks cooler than an Odyssey, but consensus is that it does, so it wins.
 
Good crossovers look cool, are utile for almost everyone's needs, and the hype surrounding the adventure 4x4 lifestyle has died down. They can tow small things, and I think the big-boat population is really pretty small, and they often prefer pick-ups anyway. And while minivans have more space, they're overkill for most people, so it's wasted betterness.
 
Back to the decline in the 4x4 adventure lifestyle thing... the last few years have seen a resurgence in sports cars/sedans, and it might all be tied into the ascendence of metrosexuals... basically it's cooler to be urban right now than it was 10 years ago. So SUVs will have less going for them as far as image goes.
 
(I should've studied sociology.)

Thanks for the answer, Carlisimo. Yeah, you should have studied sociology, LOL! :)