Edmunds CarPool

Karl, I agree with you 100%. Personally I believe there's no use for crossovers except for image: minivans are better options for those seeking excellent cargo/passenger space and decent fuel economy, real sports sedans and wagons are better for those seeking sporty handling and better fuel economy, real SUVs are better for people serious about off-roading and towing. Crossovers make sense only for image-concious buyers who want a minivan or a wagon but not the stigma attached to either.....and those who want a "high riding position with a good view of the road".
 
As an interesting aside, I really wonder what the thrill is about a high riding position. I've driven minivans and been in higher height cars but I hate the experience. During cornering, I am always concerned that I might fall over, especially when it's windy. (It gets plenty windy in West Texas.) Being low on the ground as in a normal car is far more comfortable, and honestly, I don't miss out on any scenery.
 
When it's all said and done, I really give Mazda kudos for the styling and handling of the CX-9. I haven't driven it yet, but I test-drove the very similar CX-7. Honestly, I felt as secure as I would in a normal car and didn't even fell I was riding high, which says a lot for the handling. Still, I'd prefer a Mazda 6.

Whoa onward continues the anti-crossover mpg misrepresentation!
 
According to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ ,
The non-VCM Odyssey gets 18 mpg-19 mpg. The Odyssey's real world mpg is 17.3 mpg.
The CX-9 gets 18 mpg, while the Enclave gets 19 mpg.
 
Why the VCM Odyssey gets better mpg than either the Ford or the GM?
Chuck it up to Honda being a Honda.
The VCM Odyssey's better mpg has nothing to do with minivans.
 
Honda's J35Z1, i-VTEC 3.5-Liter V-6 Engine with Variable Cylinder Management.
Hey, it's a Honda. Ford and GM engineering are non-competitive, although much more reasonably priced.

I should have mentioned this on the Avenger blog, but when is Edmunds driving the Chevy Malibu? And how about the Ford Flex as well? I'm very interested in that one.

Malibu drive is coming in the next week (already done it...but embargo date is late October). Flex is a bit further off (haven't even gotten the press trip invite yet).

Get serious. How often do you actually see 5-7 people riding in either a SUV, CUV or minivan.
 
We have a Volvo V70. Can carry four people comfortably, has more cargo capacity than many SUVs and CUVs, and has better handling and gas mileage than all of them. Wagons anyone?

Agree Karl! The Mazda is one of the best CUV's in the market right now. If you want biigger check the GM trio. All boils down to the real use. A whole lot of people buy vehicles for looks or status.
 
Sayonara!

Is the back seat of a CX-9 really as comfortable as the captains chairs of an Odyssey or T&C? I dont see ANY advantage a CUV has over a minivan..

A whole lot of vehicles in today's market are kind of pointless. Crossovers, V8 luxury sedans, BOF SUVs, luxury roadsters, etc. None of these vehicles make practical sense but people still buy them.
 
crossovers make sense to those who would otherwise be getting a Tahoe that gets 14mpg but they do not make good minivan alternatives. Fashion is key when it comes to buying new vehicles and minicans are style deficient to many people. The interesting thing is that the latest BOF SUvs arent too much worse than large crossovers iin ride and handling or mileage so you dont gain much with a large crossover.
 
Minivans hold more stuff but mileage wise they arent anything to brag about. In C&D's latest comparo the Entourage average 14mpg which is less than the Escalade in their LT test. Not good.

I sense a great opportunity for a comparsion test here.
 
Take the top 2 minivans (Honda Odyssey and Dodge Grand Caravan) and compare them to the top two crossovers (Mazda CX-9 and GMC Acadia).
 
Do the minivans really give more useable room? Do the crossovers handle any better? Who gets the best mileage when compared back to back?

mopar424 , "I dont see ANY advantage a CUV has over a minivan..."
 
The advantage of the CX-9 is that it looks HOT.
Try to pick up chicks in your Honda Odyssey.
Is higher mating probability not a highly desirable advantage?
Well, it's not if you're married.
 
By the way, do you shop at Wal-Mart for your entire clothing collection?
 
Other advantages are that it won't bottom out on nearly destroyed city roads, and it'll go through floods with more confidence.
Something to think about if you live near flooding coasts, lakes, or hurricane zones.

I like that idea, firstwagon!!
 
joberg - I love the classic Volvo wagon. It's very family-friendly. Actually, most of the wagons that remain are pretty classy and family friendly, if a bit small. I'd be willing to say that only the Magnum is competitively priced for the amount of space one gets, though.

Firstwagon,
  I agree on the comparison, but I'd have to say to include an AWD Toyota Sienna as well, as all weather capability (or at least the image of it) plays a big role in SUV's sales. However, when my parents were looking at cars a few years ago, we were told by the Toyota salespeople that only about 1% of Sienna's are equipped with AWD. Granted, that was 2004, but that (and the egregious amounts of plasti-wood in the interior) was a big reason my parents didn't buy a Sienna.
 
Billt9,
  Practically speaking, beyond the aforementioned AWD, there aren't many things an CUV can do better than a minivan (or wagon). However, you're right that appearance sells (after all, who in their right mind wants to be stuck driving a frumpy old minivan when they could have a cool crossover?)

bilt9, LOL! It reminds me, last year, some friends of mine and I were driving this minivan we rented for a long distance trip. Right infront of us were these three hot chicks in a convertible. (Incidentally, there were three of us in the minivan!) Two of us got all excited but my other friend, who was driving, said "in a minivan.....bad idea!"
 
But that being said, I'm not sure I'd describe the CX-9 as a chick getter either! I don't know if any car without a luxury brand name would be an effective tool for getting attention from chicks: afterall this is America and most people can afford a non-luxury car, at least with credit and financing......
And secondly, if a woman is attracted to me primarily because of my car I'm not sure she's worth it....
 
I agree with what 1487 said: "Fashion is key when it comes to buying new vehicles and minicans are style deficient to many people....". I kind of said the same thing earlier that crossovers make sense when image comes into the equation.

Next time one wonders why anyone would choose a CUV over a minivan, go ask a female associate why they choose 4 inch heels over cross-trainers or ask a male associate why they would wear a necktie instead of a Van Halen t-shirt.

Over on Inside Line, on their long term fleet of vehicles, they have a 2007 Audi Q7 4.2 compared to the CX-9. here's a taste of two of the stats that interested me that made me think of this piece.
 
Maximum interior cargo space with both rear rows folded
88.7 cubic-feet for the Audi and 100.7 cubes for the Mazda
 
Can 6-foot-3 Associate Editor James Riswick fit comfortably in the third row?
Not so much in the Audi Q7, but he can in the CX-9. Also, the CX-9's second row seats three, while our Q7's captain's chairs hold only two.
 
I personally enjoy the CX-9 over a mini-van any day. but then again, I don't have kids and I'm a mere 22 years old.

" I'm not sure I'd describe the CX-9 as a chick getter either! "
 
It will impress the mom's at your kids school. Not sure where that will get you but.... :)

7driver, I make my wife wear cross trainers.
I walk at normal speed, with normal agility, and remind her that she can't cut through movie and dinner crowds at popular places efficiently enough with those sadomasochistic heels. She gets lost in the crowd and I have to come retrieve her.
 
Now, you can't compare a CX-9 to that. The CX-9 is sexy, and agile.
So is my wife in HOT cross trainers. Oh ya.

I think it boils down to the reality that a lot of people wouldn't consider any brand of minivan. A Sienna, Caravan or Odyssey... come on, what's next? Should I just surrender my balls, wear a fanny pack and yellow rubber gardening crocks? I do not think so. Sorry, style matters.
 
I rode with a professional driver in a CX-9 around LimeRock racetrack a few months back. The performance that this driver squeezed out of this Mazda was incredible, and wouldn't be possible in a minivan. There is a lot to be said about over-engineering a vehicle for these occasions.

Which brings up the question, aside from the sliding doors, what's the difference between a crossover and a minivan?
 
  If the CX-9 had sliding doors and no other changes, would it be a minivan? The platforms are basically the same as are the drivetrains and overall dimensions.
 
Why is one cool and the other not?
 
Personally I think minivan owners are way cooler then crossover owners. Minivan owners are self confident enough to drive the best vehicle irregardless of what the image consious trendy types think.
 
I still like the Mazda though..... if it just had the handy sliding doors it would be perfect.

"I think minivan owners are way cooler than crossover owners"... In other words "yeah, but she's got a great personality"?

I have a question. Actually, a couple.
 
Let me preface this by saying my wife and I own a minivan, and I am aware of the amazing ways they come in handy.
 
You stated that the Odyssey has twice the cargo space of the CX9 or the GM triplets. How is that possible? The Odyssey can hold up to 8 persons, as can the GM vehicles. I grant you the Odyssey may have a little more room behind the third row, but it can't be that much larger inside. Is this measured with seats in or out? I know I can take all seats but the front row out of my minivan, 2000 Chevrolet Venture LT extended with the 8 seats.
 
Is it because the Odyssey can remove its seats as well? I have sat in the Saturn Outlook and it is quite roomy. I am having a real tough time believing the cargo space thing, unless the seats are removed.
 
In addition many owners and long term tests come back with an average mileage of 18 mpg. Some as high as 20 mpg, which is what my wife has averaged in the Venture since new.
 
As for the minivan versus CUV thing, let's face facts. Many women (my wife is not one of them) will not be caught dead in a minivan or a station wagon. Sorry guys, station wagons remind them of either their parents or grandparents. All minivans are in their eyes are taller station wagons.

Aurakr, I believe that they're talking about total volume. Any CUV or SUV has a raised load floor, most notably towards the tailgate, to allow for greater wheel articulation, AWD, and more ground clearance. Their cabins are roomy feeling (at least in the first 2 rows) because they tend to be wide and have a lot of glass area. However, when you start trying to pack a bunch of stuff in them with the seats folded down, you start to wonder, "where did all the room go?"
 
It also seems that your buying preferences as an adult seem to be based on what you learned as a kid. For example, when I was 10, my parents bought a 2000 Odyssey, and I thought that it was just the coolest car ever (the fact that my dad exploited its handling characteristics while I was in the car didn't hurt :)). My dad also had a Subaru Legacy. As such, at 17, I like minivans and station wagons, all wheel drive, and good handling characteristics (I seriously considered buying a Subaru Legacy wagon, but went with a Mazda3 for the smaller size and fuel economy).
 
Compare that to my mom, whose parents had a station wagon when she was a kid, and now thinks that her Honda Pilot is way cooler than any minivan. Thus, if you think a car is uncool when you're young, chances are you won't buy one later in life.

jr1m90
 
You got so much correct. When I turned 16 years old, I was taught to drive in a suburban. All of my friends loved that car, because we could put up to 10 people in it without trying. My mom had previously only driven station wagons, therefore for the most part I thought they were uncool, except for the 70 Mercury Marquis wagon she had with the 428 or 429, can't remember, that was fun. It also sat 10 people in it with the back seats(children).
 
I guess because the Suburban was cool to me and my friends, to this day I would consider owning one.
 
The total volume is why I asked with the seats out. That helps a lot if you have a big load. Don't get me wrong, I am often amazed at how much stuff we have put in the van that I am sure would not fit in an CUV or a SUV. Again, it really helps to be able to take the seats out. In the Venture with the modular seats, it is so easy.
 
In normal driving, I rather like the higher driving perspective of a minivan or a CUV. Many people were and are like my mother(RIP). For many years she was a station wagon only person. Then one day in 1976, my dad brought home our first Suburban. At first my mom told my dad to take it back, but he finally got her to drive it. Once and she was hooked. Until the day she passed, no more station wagons, only Suburbans. Not only did she feel invincible in that Suburban, she no longer was low to the ground. She drove that vehicle places no wagon would ever have gone.
 
I grant you a wagon of the same size would probably have gotten better mileage. After all her 1970 Marquis wagon with the 428 or 429, got 18-22 mpg on trips, compared to 17 mpg at best with the Suburban, but she grew to love the higher view point of the road. It seems to me, many people like the higher vantage point(just checked with the wife and she agrees :o)
 
That is where wagons lose out today. For many older folks, it is so difficult to bend down into a car of any type. Minivans and CUVs are much easier to get in and out of.

I don't think it's the removable seats that cranks up the max cargo capacity. The Chrysler Town and Country seats fold into the floor and it's rated at 144 cu-ft. The Nissan Quest seats fold flat but aren't removable and it's rated at 146 cu-ft . The Saturn Outlook and CX9 are rated at 117 and 101 respectively. If you look at space behind the 3rd row, the numbers are telling: 32.7 and 32.3 vs. 19.7 and 17.2. However it should be noted that the crossovers are 3-4 inches shorter than the minivans. That could be a good thing for some people, bad for others.
 
For grins and giggles, the Volvo V70 and Subaru Outback wagons are rated at 71 and 65 for total cargo, less than half that of the minivans and up to 50% less than the crossovers.