SUVs are evil. Evil I tell you! They represent all that’s bad about America: greed, sloth, gluttony, selfishness, arrogance and environmental indifference. They gargle gas, warm the planet and knock poor little hybrids into next week. More importantly, SUVs cost a fortune to feed and depreciate like packet of condoms. So what’s an SUV-intensive manufacturer like GM to do? Why make an SUV that doesn’t do all that hard-core SUV stuff, spiffy-it-up a bit, and sell it to all the people who love SUVs but hate SUVs. Ladies and gentlemen, the GMC Acadia.
Semi-evil or not, the Acadia sure is a handsome beast. It hits the sweet spot between the overly swoopy Buick Enclave (one of its two ugly Lambda dancing half sisters) and the excessively angular Toyota Highlander and Honda Pilot. Though it's not obvious from photographs, the Acadia’s huge. It’s only a couple of inches shorter than its GMC sibling (and competitor), the once-mighty Yukon SUV. To add political correctness, GM removed eight inches of height, giving the Acadia a PC-pleasing passenger-car-like appearance.
Like all three-row CUV’s, the Acadia’s packaging is not without its problems. On the positive side, thanks to GM's "SmartSlide" system, passengers don't have to mountaineer over the second row to get into the wayback. But once ensconced, those poor unfortunate souls are relegated to a how-low-can-you-go seating position. They also face the daunting task of convincing second row passengers to scootch forward and sacrifice their legs legroom– so that the rearmost occupants don’t have to sit like cross-legged Yogi.
While the Acadia’s SmartSlide system offers kid-friendly clambering; the middle seats ride in huge tracks recessed into the floor. What’s the bet crayons, Lego and French fries clog the tracks– impeding the seat's movement and causing expensive damage to the mechanism– faster than you can say “No YOU get the vacuum cleaner.”
Extricating yourself from the rear also lacks fun. The Acadia’s interior designers forgot to include an assist handle for those of us who are too tall to just stand up and walk out.
Aesthetically, some genius in the design department decided that plastichrome trim would make the Acadia’s interior look more expensive. It doesn't. The trim around the center AC vents curves onto the top of the dash– right where it reflects the sun into the driver's eyes. The trim around the shifter looks like something from a Wal-Mart boom box. Props for eschewing wood grain or faux carbon fiber, but the overall ambiance doesn’t say $40k vehicle to me.
Questionable materials quality doesn't help the situation, and do much to make it worse. The leather on the test vehicle’s passenger seat was already cracked and showing its backing in one spot. The tambour door on the cubby in the console had all the substance of a sheet of typing paper. The volume control knob on the non-GPS-equipped radio felt like it was connected to nothing whatsoever.
When you turn the Acadia’s key, you hear… practically nothing; I had to look at the tach to see if it had started. Slide the six-speed automatic’s shifter into "D" (or "L" if you want to use the non-intuitive buttons on the side of the lever to swap cogs), and you're on your way. The transmission shifts smoothly on the way up. But when you floor it, the tranny jerks as the autobox drops a couple of gears to propel the 2.5-ton family hauler with some semblance of alacrity.
The Acadia’s not quick but neither does it block traffic; its 275hp 3.6-liter V6 ambles the big rig from rest to 60 miles per hour in just under eight seconds. Because of the CUV's smooth ride and abundant sound insulation, once sufficient speed is attained, it’s a pleasure to putter about town or cruise the interstate. While you’d no more hustle an Acadia than use a MX-5 to move house, the GMC always feels like you're driving something much smaller.
Any illusions in that department are shattered at the gas pump. The GMC Acadia is EPA rated at 16/24. While that’s an improvement on the Yukon/Tahoe’s abysmal 14/19, GMC's three-row machine is no fuel miser– especially when you compare it to Toyota’s RAV4 (21/27).
Question: do you REALLY need that third row? If you don’t, face facts: the GMC Acadia offers nothing more than faux rehab for SUV recidivists. (Suck it up and buy a nice $40k car, already.) If you need room for seven/eight, or don’t care a fig about mileage, well, there are still a lot of better choices in the $35k to $45k CUV price range; plenty of station-wagons-on-stilts that provide a similar driving experience without the Acadia's obvious cost-cutting.
Still, the Acadia is a good vehicle that does what its target market (mainly GM loyalists) expects it to do. It's too bad that it's appeal has been degraded by beancounters. If the devil is in the details, it must be Hell being an Acadia.
87 Comments on “2008 GMC Acadia Review...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
I’m a little unsure as to why you compare its fuel mileage to the much, much smaller RAV4. Perhaps comparing it to the V6 Highlander (2WD = 18/24, 4WD = 17/23) might be more in line with its size, though I believe even the upsized Highlander is quite a bit smaller than the monstrous GMC. Still, looking at the Toyota’s numbers, they’re very close to the Acadia’s.
Anyway, I’ve been in both the Saturn Outlook and Acadia, and I’ve found the interior reminds me of the Saturn Aura’s – which is to say decently styled in most spots, a step up from GMs of yore, but still not class competitive. I don’t know what all the fuss is about. The Lambdas, the Aura, and the new Malibu are better than the craptastic older interiors, but definitely aren’t world-beaters.
The Rav4’s gas mileage? That comparison opens a can of worms. Didn’t you just criticize the third row in the Acadia? Sitting in the Rav4’s third row is right up there with waterboarding on the CIA’s list of not-quite-torture torture techniques.
The Acadia has one of the best third rows in the business (up there with the CX-9), and still has cargo space behind it. I think that’ll explain why the MUCH larger Acadia’s mpg is somewhat lower than that of the Rav4.
L47_V8
I’m a little unsure as to why you compare its fuel mileage to the much, much smaller RAV4.
Because for the things that most people use a vehicle like the Acadia, a smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicle like a RAV4 would work just as well. I mean, honestly, how often do you see any three-row vehicle with anyone but kids in the third row — if it's occupied at all. If people are buying large CUVs (including the Pilot and Highlander) because they think they're going to save a lot of gas over an SUV, they need to take a step back and take an honest look at their transportation needs. If they did, they'd see they could get by with a smaller vehicle and save even more gas. (Yeah, and I know what the chances of that ever happening are!)
Frank Williams :
February 13th, 2008 at 9:10 am
L47_V8
I’m a little unsure as to why you compare its fuel mileage to the much, much smaller RAV4.
Because for the things that most people use a vehicle like the Acadia, a smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicle like a RAV4 would work just as well. I mean, honestly, how often do you see any three-row vehicle with anyone but kids in the third row — if it’s occupied at all. If people are buying large CUVs (including the Pilot and Highlander) because they think they’re going to save a lot of gas over an SUV, they need to take a step back and take an honest look at their transportation needs. If they did, they’d see they could get by with a smaller vehicle and save even more gas. (Yeah, and I know what the chances of that ever happening are!)
I agree 100%, and I’m a huge critic of the massive amounts of gigantic SUVs getting 9 mpg because the lone person in the car (the driver, usually a 110 lb soccer mom) decides she needs to test the 0-60 acceleration at every single stoplight. However, I still think you could’ve picked an apples-to-apples comparison. It could be misconstrued.
Frank Williams :
February 13th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Because for the things that most people use a vehicle like the Acadia, a smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicle like a RAV4 would work just as well. I mean, honestly, how often do you see any three-row vehicle with anyone but kids in the third row — if it’s occupied at all
So what you’re saying is that instead of comparing the Arcadia to an equivalent vehicle, you decided to compare it to a differet class of vehicle that you feel that people should be driving instead.
When you review the Buick Lucerne or some other equivalent car, can we expect you to compare the milage to the Toyota Yaris? After all, you never see people using that middle spot in the back seat of the Buick, so the Yaris must be the appropriate car for them. Right?
VictoryCabal
So what you’re saying is that instead of comparing the Arcadia to an equivalent vehicle, you decided to compare it to a differet class of vehicle that you feel that people should be driving instead.
I’m simply making a point that if people are moving to CUVs because they want to save gas over an SUV, there are much more economical CUVs they could buy, including more economical three-row alternatives if that’s what they’re looking for.
As the owner of a Honda Odyssey, I want to add my support to Frank’s position.
If you use a CUV’s way back seats for small children and don’t carry big loads, the Acadia/Enclave/Outlook/Traverse will do the job. As will plenty of other three-row CUVs that are better built, more comfortable for the price and get better mpgs. The higher mpg, better value RAV-4 is a valid comparison.
If you use the third row for adults (or near-as-dammit adults) and/or want/need the carrying capacity created by a long vehicle, you need MORE rear space than the Acadia/Enclave/Outlook/Traverse and all the other three row CUVs can deliver.
For those applications nothing beats a minivan or, gulp, a full-size SUV (e.g. the Lincoln Navigator)– even though neither of these alternatives represents a significant improvement over the average CUV’s mpg.
Now if you’re talking “occasional” third row use, well, who am I to argue? In a free market, consumers are free to buy capacity they don’t need save, perhaps, psychologically. Which is, in fact, the entire rationale for the SUV boom. Which is what the CUV is supposed to be reacting against. But isn’t, really.
I think Frank’s Acadia vs. RAV-4 comparison helps make this point.
I have to agree that the RAV4 is a bad comparison to the Acadia; they are simply not cross-shopped, whether you approve of it or not.
We looked at the Acadia when we were buying a new truck for the wife and kids. We liked the vehicle, and it is handsome for a CUV, but the interior bits felt like they were designed (in typical GM fashion) to last as long as the warranty. Very cheap.
We opted for a Honda Pilot, and it’s a very good vehicle. Not as swoopy as the Acadia, but it feels like it will last, and our experience with Honda products indicates that it will easily go 200K.
As for the RAV4, the third row is a joke. We need it for various school activities, and in looking at the available CUV’s, the Pilot was an easy choice. We liked the mazda CX-9, but it’s a brand new vehicle, and I’m not sold on Mazda’s long-term reliability. We keep our vehicles a long time, usually 7-10 years, so this was the deciding factor. And in that regard, the GMC wasn’t even a player.
Zarba:
I have to agree that the RAV4 is a bad comparison to the Acadia; they are simply not cross-shopped, whether you approve of it or not.
Do we know that for a fact? Also, again, Frank is saying that they should be cross-shopped.
This phenomenon is baffling at best. There is an apparent need for people to have vehicles which seat six in comfort and haul lots of stuff; minivans do this job superbly and are not nearly as effective at blocking sunlight as they prowl down suburban streets. On the other hand, the more plebian station wagon is an excellent choice for those who might wish room for four and space for lots of stuff, including a Home Depot run over the weekend. Either vehicle can be equipped with 4WD for those places where it is necessary, but both the minivan and the station wagon appear to be radioactive from sales statistics.
Strange that the space efficient minivan and the utilitarian station wagon do not make the appropriate automotive fashion statement today. One cannot blame this phenomenon on the manufacturers, but it would be interesting indeed to understand the psychology behind people buying vehicles which are generally less suitable for their use than either a minivan or a good old wagon.
The folks I see that do use that third row are construction contractors. Whether they carry as many workers as possible rather than fill up the job site with cars, or stop at the temp agency to collect workers with no cars, I can’t say.
I do know that a lot of the contractors working in MD drive in from PA – 60 to 120 miles away. Some of their service trucks and vans are crammed with passengers.
I won’t wade into the RAV4 vs. Acadia argument, but I will stick up for the Lambdas a bit.
What I think is not appreciated is that 99% of 3-row Crossovers are a joke (inclduing our MDX). The third row is so small that only small children fit back there. But here’s the thing, you the parent still have to go back there every time and install the booster/car seat (where is that damned latch loop, anyhow?). Then you have to pull the seatbelt around the carseat. Then you get out of the car so you can lift your kid so they can get to the ‘way back’.
You’re not done yet, you still have to get back to the third row so you can fit the seat belt around your kid. Five minutes later, when you arrive at pre-school, you need to reverse the entire process so you can fold the third row back down so you can actually carry something back there.
The R-class and Lambdas like the Acadia are the only crossovers I’ve seen with enough room to make this process liveable.
Why not buy a nice Odyssey or Sienna for less coin and better mileage? Well, I asked that very same question. And was told by the little mother of 3 that she wouldn’t be caught dead in a ‘mommyvan.”
Perhaps we could get one in black and it could double as a hearse.
Robert Farago:
February 13th, 2008 at 10:07 am
As the owner of a Honda Odyssey, I want to add my support to Frank’s position. [snip] I think Frank’s Acadia vs. RAV-4 comparison helps make this point.
That may be, but I don’t feel that he makes it clear in the review WHY he considers them equivalent, and WHY comparing the milage of the two vehicles fair. The review continaully hits on how big the Arcadia, and then compares the milage to Toyota’s smallest SUV. Perhaps I’m over-sensitive, but the whole graf has a very Thomas Freidman-esq feel to it. Would you compare the Land Cruiser to the Torrent? Why not? They’re both SUVs.
If you consider them equivalent only because they’re both 3-row CUVs, then state that explicitly.
I guess it’s “Pick on Frank Williams Day.”
However, I don’t mind that you pointed out thriftier alternatives (the Highlander, with its smaller cross-section, has a better chance of hitting its highway numbers at speed and, with its lower mass, has a better chance of hitting its city numbers and the third row isn’t waterboarding, it’s just a stress position).
No, what’s irked me is “The Acadia’s not quick… … under eight seconds.”
There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, it’s pretty good. This vehicle stops barely short of being a truck. In fact, twenty years ago, it probably would have been noticeably bigger than most trucks. In 1956, it would certainly have been bigger than all pickup trucks. Anything under ten in this weight class isn’t bad at all and if this beast makes under eight, it deserves a certain amount of praise, along the lines of “surprising giddy-up for a trucklet.”
LXbuilder:
Right on. To much editorializing about the class of vehicle (largish CUV) in the review.
While I prefer a wagon surprisingly U.S. consumers don’t. That should not be held against the Acadia. Is it a good large sized CUV?
I second KixStart’s assessment, 0-60 in under 8 seconds for a big-ass car was surprisingly fast to me. Sure it isn’t quick, for a sports car. For a 5,000 pound monster, that’s rocket speed.
The Highlander is the apporpriate vehicle to compare to the Acadia. Also, as mentioned in the review, the Acadua gets 25% better than a Yukon so it is indeed a more economical choice. Plus, most people are not paying $40k for the Acadia, they are paying around $30k.
As SUV’s continue to evolve in a direction that completely abandons their original capabilities, one is reminded of the axiom that a fanatic is one, who upon losing sight of their original goal, redoubles their effort.
I noticed in the review that there wasn’t a single word about this vehicle’s traction in adverse conditions, let alone any mention of its off-road capability, if there is any.
Perkins, I’m not sure you can say, with confidence, that US consumers don’t like wagons. For the most part, we don’t have much in the way of wagon choices to evaluate.
Subaru (kinda – you must take AWD)
Volvo ($$!)
Matrix/Vibe (nice but small yet tall)
Focus wagon (dinky and, anyway, a Ford, so forget it).
Did I overlook anyone? And what don’t we have?
No Camry wagon
No Taurus wagon (there is the Taurus X but it’s not a wagon)
No Impala wagon
No Malibu wagon (there was the Maxx but not really a wagon, sort of a hatchie-wagon and, anyway, gone)
No Accord wagon
No Cavalier wagon
No Peugeot SW-8 (I think it was a derivative of the 504).
If you want something like a wagon, you go get something like a Rav (that was our decision) or move into CUV/SUV territory.
We got along, for a long time, with a Volvo 240 with 3rd seat option. But couldn’t replace it for reasonable with anything similar.
Perkins : While I prefer a wagon surprisingly U.S. consumers don’t. That should not be held against the Acadia. Is it a good large sized CUV?
As I stated in the last paragraph,
Still, the Acadia is a good vehicle … [that] has been degraded by beancounters.
It's a pity that a vehicle with so much promise was brought down by the quality of materials. I was serious about the bad leather on the passenger seat. It was probably an inch square and right in the middle of the seat cushion. It should have been fixed before it ever left the factory. Combine quality control like that with small but glaring design mistakes (like omitting an assist handle for the third row and the dash trim that reflected the sun into my eyes) and it's obvious that with a bit more attention to detail they produce a world-class vehicle. As it is, though, it's close but no cigar.
Frank Williams :
February 13th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Perkins :
While I prefer a wagon surprisingly U.S. consumers don’t. That should not be held against the Acadia. Is it a good large sized CUV?
As I stated in the last paragraph,
Still, the Acadia is a good vehicle … [that] has been degraded by beancounters.
It’s a pity that a vehicle with so much promise was brought down by the quality of materials. I was serious about the bad leather on the passenger seat. It was probably an inch square and right in the middle of the seat cushion. It should have been fixed before it ever left the factory. Combine quality control like that with small but glaring design mistakes (like omitting an assist handle for the third row and the dash trim that reflected the sun into my eyes) and it’s obvious that with a bit more attention to detail they produce a world-class vehicle. As it is, though, it’s close but no cigar.
Welcome to GM World. For the last 15 years, at least.
Always promising more than they deliver (not more than they can deliver, mind you – just more than they eventually do deliver). The hype nearly always outweighs the car.
Larry P2
I noticed in the review that there wasn’t a single word about this vehicle’s traction in adverse conditions, let alone any mention of its off-road capability, if there is any.
As it was a bright, sunny, 60-degree day in Atlanta when I drove it, I had no experience with driving it in adverse conditions. Likewise, I didn’t take the FWD tester off road. It’s available with AWD and has 7.4″ of ground clearance, so I’d have to say that its off-road capability depends on where you’re taking it off road and what you expect it to do once you’re there.
Kixstart,
I don’t think we can blame automakers for the lack of wagons. They built them, but nobody came.
Examples:
-Magnum
-Camry wagon (AKA the batmobile)
-Accord wagon
-Taurus
The large crossovery minivanish things also failed/ are failing:
-Pacifica
-Taurus X
-R-class
-Rendezvous/Aztek
If people would prefer to spend $30K for a crossover when a $20K wagon is a better choice, can we really blame automakers for supplying them?
The Rav-4 and the Acadia are no more competitors than a Corolla is to a 3-series. Frank’s argument that most people only need the Rav-4 would also suffice to the Corolla/3-series argument. Most people also don’t need tight handling, RWD, brand cache, etc, etc.. They merely want it, just like people want the size, perceived safety, and capabilities of the Acadia. That is why it is a poor argument.
If we all bought this argument, then we should all be happy driving the lowest means of work transport necessary.
Also, 16/24 while in and of itself isn’t great, it is excellent for a nearly 5000lb vehicle. As Robert pointed out, minivans don’t do much better.
Sorry guys, but the objectivity of this review is suspect.
KixStart :
Did I overlook anyone? And what don’t we have?
The Koreans – the GMDAT built Suzuki Forenza, the just-introduced Hyundai Elantra, and the wagon-ish Kia Rondo. Focus wagon got axed some time ago.
The RAV4 vs. Acadia argument is not unreasonable, as the American tendency is to buy a vehicle (house, flat screen TV, etc) on the larger side must now weighed against the stagflating economic climate and gradually rising gas prices. Given that and the average household having 2.2 kids (and sometimes have to carry a couple of friends), one could make a case for the average family to choose the RAV4, as Frank has. (That’s if you’re not stupid enough to get the Highlander and the 7 year loan…)
Being a minivan owner, I’ll admit it is very nice to have a larger vehicle when you need it – we seat our family of 5 all spread out in all 3 rows with room to spare for the frequent Costco runs. We are a bit snug in the much smaller Mazda5 the few times we all have to pile in, but it suffices for local trips. The big additional plus with minivans – you can get the strippers for a lot less then a current Lambda, we’ll see how low the Traverse goes.
SherbornSean:
Don’t forget the Mazda6 wagon. The next generation looks gorgeous but still no word on when (probably if ever) it will be coming here.
Hmmm… I remember writing about the Roadmaster wagon a month back. This may be a good time to publish it at TTAC.
I think Frank’s point has credence in a market with $3.00+ gas and an anti-SUV orientation. The Acadia will most likely fall short with those who are willing to cross-shop beyond the normal market segments… which is actually becoming commonplace these days.
I just had a professor friend of mine buy a RAV4 upon my recommendation. He wanted an SUV with room, but did not want a gas guzzling hefty vehicle. Although he could have afforded the Pilot or Enclave (or Highlander), he went with the RAV4 because it offered the right mix of utility and heft.
On a side note, I love wagons but they absolutely do not sell these days. The average wagon usually costs about $500 to $1000 less at the auctions precisely because people want to sit high and feel mighty. Oddly enough minivan prices are very heavily dependent on the manufacturers, but with wagons, they all just fall short of the resale values of their contemporary coupe and sedan models.
SherbornSean :
February 13th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Kixstart,
I don’t think we can blame automakers for the lack of wagons. They built them, but nobody came.
i’ll predict that Toyota has made the right move here. they’ve watched this whole “predicament” of wanting utility and improved mileage and they realize that it’s image and style (the lack of) that keep people away from station wagons. toyota has a new vehicle, the Venza, which is sufficiently distinct to avoid the “station wagon” moniker. it has the genetics of many different vehicle types but it might just be the “hybrid” needed to get people into a more logical vehicle.
NN,
I think you’re being overly critical and overlooking something important…
One reason for the Lambdas was the expected market of SUV owners downsizing to escape high fuel costs.
OK. What Frank is telling that market is, you’re not going to gain much by downsizing to the Lambda. Think about your needs and, maybe, take it to the limit.
SherbornSean,
I think the problem with the Magnum wasn’t a dearth of people seeking a wagon, it was a dearth of people seeking the Magnum.
But, to some extent anyway, I admit, you’re right. Ten or fifteen or whatever years ago, the Camry wagon (Batmobile?) didn’t sell well and it was discontinued. The Accord wagon didn’t sell well and ditto.
But times change and the time may be right for a good quality wagon based on a good midsize car. Fuel costs are up, people are somewhat nervous about their impact on Global Warming; a good midsize wagon for reasonable $ might play well in this environment.
But someone has to risk a fair amount of money to find out and I can see where they might not be eager to do that. Of course, if you’re the only one in that previously undiscovered market segment, you get all the business.
That new Toyota thing (Venza? V-something), that’s almost there. A little bit more sport-uty than I would like but we can just as easily move back to a sedan next time, anyway.
I guess I really don’t see the need for large CUV’s. All wheel drive is nice but costly to own/run. FWD minivans have always served me well and get descent mileage. Snow and Ice have never been a problem and I have driven in South Dakota snow storms. Seems like the SUV/Pickup meets the need of heavy duty towing and the minivan carries the most people/bulky objects. Large CUV’s are just a waste IMO. But americans are know to waste money and energy on their automotive toys/distractions. Maybe when gas hits $4/gal, americans will finally wake up and start conserving fuel and money. But I won’t hold my breath.
There’s yet another solution to the “We need seating for 8 a few times per year” problem… Take two cars.
This works well for local trips; your kids plus a few friends to the movies or a birthday outing. We’ve done that.
It’s also better to have what the Scouts call “two-deep leadership” in those cases, anyway. One parent to hang on to the children that aren’t lost and one parent to hunt down the one that did.
I just looked up the numbers, 0-60 for my 97 A4 is ~8 seconds when she was new.
How’s about we all agree to call
So besides the much smaller RAV4, what are the other CUV’s in the GMC’s price range that are so much better (I ask only becasue with baby #2 on the way, the spousal unit has been making noise about handing me our V70R and ditching my 9-2x)? The CX9? The MDX?
So what you’re saying is that instead of comparing the Arcadia to an equivalent vehicle, you decided to compare it to a differet class of vehicle that you feel that people should be driving instead.
That isn’t what he said.
The premise of the article is that CUV’s appeal to buyers who wish to avoid the perceived excesses of SUV’s, but that CUV’s such as this are so large and inefficient that they don’t consume much less than the SUV’s that they replace, and that there are more efficient alternatives that actually do consume substantially less.
That’s a fair argument. As we saw during the last fuel run-up, rising fuel prices do tend to encourage shoppers to downsize their vehicles. When the compact market grew during the 1970’s, a lot of those smaller vehicles went into the hands of drivers who had owned much larger vehicles previously. While the automakers and the fans may not think that large and smaller vehicles are comparable, many buyers actually do cross-shop as they decide whether to compromise on size or efficiency.
As enthusiasts, we would be wise to realize that particularly during transitional periods such as this one, different size classes of vehicles are often cross-shopped and are comparable. It’s not as if most car buyers buy their vehicles the way that they buy their meat — by the pound.
Funny how people complain about the “unusable” back seats. One should try fitting in the back seats of a 944 Porsche, just to be able to appreciate all the leg room, head room, and most importantly hip room that you can get even in the worst of the 3rd row seats these days.
It’s also funny how GM got the crappiest, flimisiest stereo and HVAC control buttons in the automotive world. I mean, somebody had to have deep hatred for humanity to design, approve, and manufacture these. What’s even funnier is that they get stuffed in everything from Cobalt to Solstice to LaCrosse to 9-3. I bet somebody got a nice fat bonus for saving 26.3 cents on every single car GM makes. I hope they burn in hell, together with the creator of aluminum siding.
I see Acadia got these crap knobs as well. I’m pretty sure that more than one person will have their opinion of the truck subconsciously ruined as soon as they try to adjust the volume.
Kixstart
what focus wagon? dead for 08.
Another sensible caution might be, “don’t wait to downsize.” If fuel prices spike while you’re caught with big iron and a need to trade/abandon it in favor of something else, the prices on the more fuel-efficient models will skyrocket and the trade on your behemoth will plummet.
NOTE: This review has attracted a number of flamers.
While I understand the frustration that some readers feel at the comparison between the GMC Acadia and the Toyota RAV-4, Frank (and others, myself included) have explained the basis for this comparison.
Readers are free to continue to criticize this choice– in a respectful manner that does not violate our stated posting policy. I will continue to delete posts that violate our prohibition against flaming the site, its authors or fellow commentators. I will continue to ban commentators who do not heed their first and only warning.
Do NOT respond to such comments. Simply report them to me at robert.farago@thetruthaboutcars.com and I will deal.
Thank you for your understanding.
Pch101
That isn’t what he said.
The premise of the article is that CUV’s appeal to buyers who wish to avoid the perceived excesses of SUV’s, but that CUV’s such as this are so large and inefficient that they don’t consume much less than the SUV’s that they replace, and that there are more efficient alternatives that actually do consume substantially less.
That’s a fair argument. As we saw during the last fuel run-up, rising fuel prices do tend to encourage shoppers to downsize their vehicles. When the compact market grew during the 1970’s, a lot of those smaller vehicles went into the hands of drivers who had owned much larger vehicles previously. While the automakers and the fans may not think that large and smaller vehicles are comparable, many buyers actually do cross-shop as they decide whether to compromise on size or efficiency.
As enthusiasts, we would be wise to realize that particularly during transitional periods such as this one, different size classes of vehicles are often cross-shopped and are comparable. It’s not as if most car buyers buy their vehicles the way that they buy their meat — by the pound.
Some people actually need the space. Some people have four kids. Some people also need to take said four kids to the grocery store and fit all the groceries behind the last row of seats. For many people the Rav4 is just as useless to them as would be a Lotus Elise.
“but that CUV’s such as this are so large and inefficient that they don’t consume much less than the SUV’s that they replace”
These large crossovers DO consume a lot less than large SUVs. The 2008 Sequoia 2WD with the smallest engine gets 17mpg HIGHWAY. HIGHWAY! The 2WD Acadia gets 24mpg highway: 7 miles per gallon better than the Sequoia.
And what does the 2008 Honda Odyssey get? Same city mpg rating as the Acadia and 23mpg on the highway–one less than the Acadia. Bravo.
If GM sold these CUVs only to families with 4 kids that must be driven, en masse, to the grocery store, they’d close the line down.
I can’t think of a single other family in our neighborhood with 4 kids.
Who do I know with SUVs/CUVs and what’s their family size? Hmmm… two kids. Two kids. Three kids. Two kids. Two kids.
Prior to getting a minivan, if my wife and I were both home and a grocery run was required, she’d go by herself and I’d supervise the children. No need for an SUV/CUV.
If I wasn’t home and a grocery run was required, that’s three across in the back and one gets shotgun. No need for an SUV/CUV.
If I was home and she wasn’t and a grocery run was required, that’s “Helloooo Dominooo.”
And, as far as I can tell, minivans offer considerably more interior room and more comfortable seating over a CUV/SUV. We get better fuel economy in our Sienna than the Acadia’s rated. Way better than the neighbor’s SUV (2 kids).
Sure, it’s the buyer’s money (or 7 year loan) and the buyer can and will do whatever the buyer damned well pleases.
But Frank’s talking to a market segment these things are thought to address and saying, “You’re going to be disappointed.” There’s nothing wrong with that.
Give GM some credit where it is due.
If you need to haul more than five people with a 3rd row and must have SUV-styling with car-like driving dynamics and slightly-better than SUV fuel consumption it does not get any better than these Lambdas.
The 3rd row access is cleverly engineered and at 6ft tall I had plenty of room back there despite a somewhat low bench. In fact I’m pretty sure I could tolerate a day trip back there just fine with nary a complaint. I’d also say it’s better than the rear seats in many passenger cars I’ve been in and it certainly has the majority of SUVs trumped.
I’m not sure where the RAV4 comparison comes in, that seems odd. The Ford Edge is direct competition for GM’s crossovers and I don’t think people looking for compact SUVs are also looking at fullsize vehicles like these crossovers. Back to the Edge, it does not have a 3rd row seat and it is a huge vehicle. Not only that, the 2nd row access is a squeeze and less comfortable in my opinion than GM’s 3rd row. What is the point of owning something this big if it can’t haul more than five people or lots of cargo?
The Edge doesn’t do anything better than a normal wagon like the Taurus X does (which has a 3rd row instead of the Edge, weird) and it uses more fuel, so why buy an Edge? It’s pretty clear GM’s entries are much more versatile and make a more compelling family hauler. Especially since children AND adults can actually use the 3rd row. And there’s still plenty of space behind the 3rd row with it in use.
GM has produced a great set of family haulers and a stylish alternative to minivans (which replace their own failed minivans). I think any of the Lambdas deserve at least a test drive for those in the market.
Buick61:
And what does the 2008 Honda Odyssey get? Same city mpg rating as the Acadia and 23mpg on the highway–one less than the Acadia. Bravo.
2008 Lambda FWD 16/24 avg 19
2008 Lambda AWD 16/22 avg 18
2008 Honda Odyssey w/VCM 17/25 avg 20
2008 Honda Odyssey 16/23 avg 18
2008 Toyota Sienna 17/23 avg 19
2008 Toyota Sienna AWD 16/21 avg 18
FWIW, Consumer Reports got slightly (1-2 mpm) better numbers overall for their Siennas compared to the Lambda and Odyssey. And like KixStart, I’m in the minivan camp.
- Car companies probably make more money with the CUV’s/SUV’s than wagons.
- Given the existing stigma attached to wagons, it would also take more marketing money and resources to convince people to buy a wagon versus a SUV.
- The Magnum’s strategy was doomed from the start. Macho guys don’t drive wagons. And moms want stylish, not macho. A large wagon with styling targeted at the appropriate demographic would work a lot better.
- I have three kids and my wife drives an Odyssey. I agree it’s more practical than an SUV.
- If we’re going to talk mpg, then enthusiasts are just as guilty. I fit the three kids in their car seats across the back seat of my WRX. But I rarely get better than 20 mpg. Fuel costs are about the same as the Odyssey because the WRX needs premium fuel.
- Unfortunately, fitting three kids across the back does make it more dangerous for side impacts- the outer kids are squeezed up against the doors a bit more.
- Despite all that, my WRX is hard to give up. So I suppose I’m just as bad as a mom who refuses to drive a wagon or minivan.
I can’t speak for others on the thread, but my argument isn’t that there’s no equivalence between the Arcadia and the RAV4 (of course there’s some), and my argument isn’t that many shoppers will won’t find both meet their wants (of course many shoppers would like both).
My argument is with the way the comparison was made. It just feels sketchy. Like I said earlier, it has the Friedman-esq feel. Like someone has their thumb on the scale. Maybe that’s not fair, but without laying out explicitly why the review is comparing two different class vehicles, it reads like the author is shuffling behind his back. I have no doubt that wasn’t Frank William’s intent, but there it is. Writing that paragraph something like this would have been a lot better:
It’s a fine distinction, but here the basis for the comparison is explicit. I’m not trying to flame anyone, but I read TTAC for its scrupulous honesty and editorial policy. And it’s because I like TTAC so much that this bothers me so.
The reason the RAV4 keeps coming up is because this is the one CUV in any size that actually makes a real attempt at being efficient. IMO once again Toyota has hit the nail directly on the head with its 3rd generation RAV4 and they did it just in time to take advantage of rising fuel prices. These things are all over the place in my hood because they do manage to meet peoples needs without any of the unnecessary overkill you find in even Toyota’s Highlander.
With the RAV4 if you are not a power junkie you can still get a vehicle with AWD and 3rd row seating equiped with a very efficient, yet not too slow 4cyl engine. To add to this advantage you can buy one for under $30,000!
While the real world usability of the 3rd row seat is debatable the RAV4 does have cargo capacity that is comparable to the majority of much larger and heavier players in the CUV class.
If folks were comparing the last generation RAV4 to the Arcadia than I would also say there is no comparison, but by increasing the size of the RAV4 to slot right in between the CRV/Escape sized CUVs and the Arcadia/ Pilot sized ones Toyota has managed to make a vehicle that can validly compete in both segments.
I dont know about the rest of the country but here in NYC and lower Westchester you will find about 4 new RAV4s on the road for every CRV. This is due to Toyota actually making the RAV4 in a size that is more than just “cute”.
To further increase the appeal of the of the RAV4 Toyota also offers it for sale with a (VERY)powerful v6. You can actually use your RAV4 to haul or tow a decently heavy load without overwhelming the vehicle. Oh, it also rather fast too! There is also a little secret to the RAV4, IMO it is actually the best handling Toyota you can buy today! In SE trim the RAV4 is honestly fun to drive, believe it or not!
I know many folks here hate everything Toyota but the RAV4 is truly a gem. You should try one out, it might actually change some opinions about Toyota around here.
Some people actually need the space. Some people have four kids. Some people also need to take said four kids to the grocery store and fit all the groceries behind the last row of seats. For many people the Rav4 is just as useless to them as would be a Lotus Elise…
…These large crossovers DO consume a lot less than large SUVs. The 2008 Sequoia 2WD with the smallest engine gets 17mpg HIGHWAY. HIGHWAY! The 2WD Acadia gets 24mpg highway: 7 miles per gallon better than the Sequoia.
And what does the 2008 Honda Odyssey get? Same city mpg rating as the Acadia and 23mpg on the highway–one less than the Acadia. Bravo.
I think that you’ve offered a fair rebuttal with that.
Allow me to clarify my earlier point. I’m not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with the entirety of Mr. Williams’ argument, nor do I expect everyone here to agree with him. (This place would be awfully dull if everyone agreed with everyone else.) I’m only pointing out that if we are going to debate his argument, then we should interpret his argument accurately and not misrepresent what it is that he is saying.
There are many ways to compare cars to one another, and most of them don’t involve a tape measure. I don’t agree with every aspect of Mr. Williams’ view myself, but attacking it as if there isn’t any logic behind it, as some have, is a bit much.
Interesting points all.
If you consistently need to haul 8, your choice is limited. For those buying to keep the kids safe and then end up placing them in the back row, well then visit a scrap yard and look at some rear-end “events”. More crush space is better, kids are safer in the middle row.
Driving it? It’s fine. It has a LOT of legroom up front. Was in the market for a new vehicle and test drove it and many, many others. Was it outstanding? No. Quality of materials and assembly I’d rate average, but better than past GMs. It wasn’t in the same class as the Hondas I drove from a fit, finish or materials standpoint. Value for the (cdn) dollar finally eliminated it altogether, it’s simply too expensive here for what it is. Resale value is a complete unknown in the long term, CU seems to think it’s promising reliability wise, but that can change real fast.
Speaking of third row seat.
We Americans rarely used the third row seat except if you are hauling a baseball team, illegal workers that you want to work with you and pay them cheap and legal aliens if you want them to work with you with legal papers and still pay them cheap.
RAV4 is not cheap on gas. Probably the marketing plan of Toyota for RAV4 is When consumer wants to drive a smaller version of CUV/SUV that you can park any where you want and drives like a car than rather driving a bigger truck that you can’t even drive or parallel park. Except if you are 6′2 and weights 300lbs that would be a different story.
Simple marketing facts.
It also should be said that the Acadia seats up to 8. Unless you strap someone to the roof, the “7ish” passenger Rav4 just doesn’t measure up.
How much more could it cost to put one brushed nickel piece around the shifter? I see this time and time again, with Chrysler being the worst offender of using plasti-chrome on shift gates.