By Frank Williams
February 13, 2008 -
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.
3 / 5 Stars | 2008 GMC Acadia rating summary and performance review
Subscribe to Newsletter
More Reviews83 Responses to “ 2008 GMC Acadia Review ”
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 » Show All Reverse Order
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 » Show All Reverse Order
Leave a Reply 
Back to Top
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Digg
del.icio.us
Blinklist
Furl
Netscape
Google
NewsVine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Windows Live
POWERED
February 13th, 2008 at 8:27 am
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.
February 13th, 2008 at 9:07 am
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.
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!)
February 13th, 2008 at 9:35 am
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.
February 13th, 2008 at 9:41 am
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?
February 13th, 2008 at 9:55 am
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.
February 13th, 2008 at 10:07 am
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.
February 13th, 2008 at 10:09 am
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.
February 13th, 2008 at 10:17 am
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.
February 13th, 2008 at 10:22 am
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.