My comparison: Midsize/large crossovers

[DC Car Examiner]

For families looking for a large family vehicle with three rows of seats, it's hard to beat the space and practicality of a minivan. If you can stomach a van's image, you can pretty safely stop reading and head over to last month's comparison of minivans.

 

But maybe you want all-wheel-drive, which only one van (the Toyota Sienna) presently offers.

 

Or perhaps you want smaller exterior dimensions than today's less-than-svelte minivans, but still three rows of usable seats with more passenger and cargo room than half-size-smaller Dodge Journey or Kia Sorento.

 

And even if it's just the look and the image of today's pleasant and practical crossover SUVs that's winning you away from the sliding-door sect, there is a wide range of models with a different set of strengths and weaknesses...

 

Continued at link:

 

http://www.examiner.com/cars-in-national/comparison-review-eight-three-row-crossover-suvs-introduction

 

 

In an experiment, I've changed the format of the comparison slightly from the past ones: Instead of releasing the ranking order bit by bit, I'll be releasing steadily increasing level of detail:

 

Today, the ranking is published in the slideshow, with a one-sentence explanation. (Constrained to a 255-character limit.)

 

Tomorrow, I'll put up what's normally the last thing to be published: the discussion of how the models rank in different areas (comfort/luxury, value, etc).

 

And only after that will I put up the full reviews, still one at a time.

 

Thoughts on whether this system is an improvement will be welcome.

[timmm55]

 

 

Thoughts on whether this system is an improvement will be welcome.

 

 

I find the whole piece meal approach annoying. I can find 20 comparisons on these crossovers that are complete right now. Why do serialize the articles?

[DC Car Examiner]

I find the whole piece meal approach annoying. I can find 20 comparisons on these crossovers that are complete right now. Why do serialize the articles?

 

I'm not a monthly magazine, so I can't dump everything I have at once and then go without any new content for weeks and weeks. It's an unavoidable aspect of where I'm writing.

 

And if you want to see it all at once, you can always wait. If it were all going up the same day, it would probably be similarly delayed anyway.

Edited July 25, 2011 by DC Car Examiner

[timmm55]

I'm not a monthly magazine, so I can't dump everything I have at once and then go without any new content for weeks and weeks. It's an unavoidable aspect of where I'm writing.

 

And if you want to see it all at once, you can always wait. If it were all going up the same day, it would probably be similarly delayed anyway.

 

I've done that, waited till I could read it in it's entirety.

[DC Car Examiner]

I've done that, waited till I could read it in it's entirety.

 

Cool.

[aneekr]

I agree with timmm55, but also have no problem at all waiting for all segments to be presented. So either approach works just as well for me.

Edited July 25, 2011 by aneekr

[atomcat68]

I hope you don't have the preproduction prototype that Motor trend had! Otherwise we will see a review like this:

 

Last place- Ford Explorer

 

The highs are it's a good looking car.

 

The lows are that the My ford caused sunspots which knocked out HBO in seven states. The unrefined engine made our fillings fall out. The interior gave the staff VD and later made Amy Winehouse die from its exhaust fumes. Ford tried to tell us we're full of shit, and when we told them we will print this anyway, they said it must have been the prototype.

 

But you know what they say about making a second first impression,

 

Love,

the staff of Motor Trend.

[PREMiERdrum]

Looking forward to reading the full reviews. Not much to argue with here, though...

 

Third place: Ford Explorer. Sophisticated driving dynamics and a comfortable, well-finished interior impress. But the Explorer trails most competitors' cargo volume, and some shoppers will find its control interface an outright deal-breaker. Grade: B+ Credit: Brady Holt

 

Second Place: Ford Flex. Steeper discounts, plusher seats and simpler controls than its Explorer relative make the Flex a standout, though it gives up some of that model's agility. As with the Explorer, competitors have more cargo room. Grade: A- Credit: Brady Holt

 

First place: Mazda CX-9. Though it's rarely a class standout in a particular area, it's hard to find anywhere the CX-9 really falls short in a highly competitive class – even as it's the best bargain. Unless you need to seat eight, you can't go wrong with it. Grade: A- Credit: Brady Holt

 

Nice work, Brady!

[aneekr]

DC Car Examiner - that's very good photography you have for your slideshow! :shades:

[silvrsvt]

Find it slightly interesting that a stretched out CD3 platform (CX-9) has more cargo room then the D4 platform has.

 

I've been under the impression that one of the biggest reasons Ford went over Volvo was for this platform, but yet it seems like its too small and too heavy to do its job effectively.

[akirby]

Find it slightly interesting that a stretched out CD3 platform (CX-9) has more cargo room then the D4 platform has.

 

I've been under the impression that one of the biggest reasons Ford went over Volvo was for this platform, but yet it seems like its too small and too heavy to do its job effectively.

 

I'm guessing it has to do with the high floor height compared to the cd3s?

 

But honestly - who compares the cargo volume numbers when looking at a crossover/SUV?

[aneekr]

But honestly - who compares the cargo volume numbers when looking at a crossover/SUV?

Everyone

[V8-X]

But honestly - who compares the cargo volume numbers when looking at a crossover/SUV?

Depends on the person. Are they buying to use it for its intended purpose, or are they just one of the lemmings that has to have the latest craze (CUV) and could careless about the numbers.

[NLPRacing]

Find it slightly interesting that a stretched out CD3 platform (CX-9) has more cargo room then the D4 platform has.

 

I've been under the impression that one of the biggest reasons Ford went over Volvo was for this platform, but yet it seems like its too small and too heavy to do its job effectively.

 

The CX9 has more in common with the JDM Mazda MPV than it does with the Edge.

[silvrsvt]

The CX9 has more in common with the JDM Mazda MPV than it does with the Edge.

 

So does the Edge....LOL

 

The Mazda CX-9's platform is related to that which lies beneath the five-passenger Ford Edge, but the comparison ends there.

 

http://www.insideline.com/mazda/cx-9/2007/full-test-2007-mazda-cx-9.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_CX-9

 

Both are built on Mazda's G platform, which the CD3 is devered from.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_G_platform

[akirby]

Everyone

 

 

Depends on the person. Are they buying to use it for its intended purpose, or are they just one of the lemmings that has to have the latest craze (CUV) and could careless about the numbers.

 

Right - because everyone says "I need 68.2 cubic inches of cargo room". Horse hockey.

 

People go out and test drive and look at the cargo area to see if it looks big enough for what they intend to do with it. Width, height and load floor are more important than total volume.

 

I wasn't implying that cargo volume isn't important - just that the specs alone aren't very meaningful.

 

My other point was that nobody is going to pick one vehicle over another just because it has 10 cu. ft. more cargo volume without actually looking at it.

Edited July 26, 2011 by akirby

[DC Car Examiner]

Rankings summary: How the models stack up in particular ways

 

http://www.examiner.com/cars-in-national/comparison-review-eight-three-row-crossover-suvs-ranking-summary

[NLPRacing]

So does the Edge....LOL

 

 

 

http://www.insidelin...mazda-cx-9.html

 

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Mazda_CX-9

 

Both are built on Mazda's G platform, which the CD3 is devered from.

 

http://en.wikipedia....azda_G_platform

 

I was referring to the CX9's 3rd row.

[DC Car Examiner]

Eighth place: Toyota Highlander

 

 

When Toyota introduced the first Highlander in 2001, there wasn't much competition for something that looked like an SUV yet drove like a Camry.

 

Ford, Dodge and Honda midsize SUVs were still more trucks than cars; Mazda and Hyundai hadn't entered the market yet. General Motors would soon roll out the Buick Rendezvous as the first three-row “crossover” SUV, but execution problems would keep it from making a splash.

 

Since then, of course, the midsize SUV market has changed dramatically. All of the above automakers are now fielding comfortable car-like models with passably roomy interiors for seven or even eight passengers. Toyota, however, is not.

 

Continued at link:

http://www.examiner.com/cars-in-national/comparison-review-eight-three-row-crossover-suvs-eighth-place

[LoveTaurus]

Very often I questioned the truthfulness of the 95.4 cubic feet cargo space behind the front seats claimed by Toyota. The interior looks smallish. So much smaller than the Flex. Did they measure the space by moving the front seats all the way up front? The Highlander has less space behind 3rd row, less space behind 2rd row, but all the sudden there are 95 cubic feet. Where was the extra space came from? I am curious.

 

I know, I drive a Freestyle. The front roof lower compromised some space. But 9 cubic feet more, I didn't see possible.

[Anthony]

Doesn't the Flex have a floor lower roof? (just guessing)

[LoveTaurus]

Doesn't the Flex have a floor lower roof? (just guessing)

Are you referring to vehicle's total height? No, can not count interior space base on which is taller.

Passenger's headroom are similar between Flex and Highlander. Especially the Flex is squared off. Where were the extra 12 cubic feet came from on the Highlander.

[Anthony]

Are you referring to vehicle's total height? No, can not count interior space base on which is taller.

Passenger's headroom are similar between Flex and Highlander. Especially the Flex is squared off. Where were the extra 12 cubic feet came from on the Highlander.

 

 

I'd say the interior side sculpting vs the two models are probably good for 12 cubic feet (which really is actually not a large amount).

 

 

 

Though the panoramic lense they used to shoot the Flex is probably good for about and additional 1000 sq feet and a jacuzzi.

 

Edited July 28, 2011 by Intrepidatious

[LoveTaurus]

Though the panoramic lense they used to shoot the Flex is probably good for about and additional 1000 sq feet and a jacuzzi.

 

Funny :lol:

 

Thanks!

[PREMiERdrum]

Though the panoramic lense they used to shoot the Flex is probably good for about and additional 1000 sq feet and a jacuzzi.

 

Smells like a steak and seats 35!

 

12 yards long, 2 lanes wide, 65 tons of American Pride!