As an owner of a Suburban Z-71 that has now seen 100k miles and NEVER, not once, saw a shop (except for tires, brakes and oil), I must say that the new GM trio will find it’s way into my garage.

This vehicle is really nice and drives great and is SMALL. Yes, I said it….its S M A L L compared to my BIG ute.

Keep in mind that these things have three full rows of seating. I must say, though, that the price is steep. Fully-loaded they run $45k. I told the salesmen that I think for $36k, it would be priced right – lol. Thing is, they are a hot seller and dealers are just not moving on these things around here.

When I can use my GM card, and get 0%, I will be standing in line.

These vehicles do many things pretty well….sure, they weigh 5K pounds, but the fuel economy numbers are there (even real-world numbers, anecdotally – C&D and Motor Trend showed the lower end of EPA in real life, and they flog those vehicles when testing them). Plus, they stop in 170 feet, have decent power, hold a lot of people and stuff, and IMHO drive very nicely.

The review press has been very nice to them…I really don’t see anything similar for the price, as long as you keep them optioned reasonably. I got an SLT-1 with some nice addtional options (towing package, HUD, premium paint, 19″ wheels (which I didn’t really want, but the vehicle was what I wanted in every other way) for 32K after rebates and incentives).

Frankly, we were not really in the market for something this big, but the lambdas outperform smaller SUVs/CUVs in just about every category. Heck, we even looked at a few passenger sedans (namely V-6 Accords and the Maxima), and once we had them optioned as we wanted (similar to our Acadia), they were in the same price range.

for all those that wondered what old station wagons weighed? plenty. our 1976 Mercury Marquis Colony Park was 4,868 lbs. and got nowhere near 18/26 (try 12/16).

this vehicle wasn’t even available for public testing when all these negative comments were written, so it’s amazing how many people think they’re experts. I’ve driven both the Outlook and the GMC Acadia, and they are very well executed large vehicles. Yes, we haul a family around and can use the space. Our order will be going in before the end of February.

In my experience with both, the Outlook feels more stable, surefooted, and planted than an Odyssey. And I like the new Odysseys.

My point about safety is this: a full size SUV is probably a safer ride than a mini, but not safer than a minivan (for occupants – minivan safer for other drivers). Paying more for minivan vs mini will improve safety. Paying even more for Tahoe will not.

As far as spending extra for style – I do it all the time. Sometimes I spend 20-30 bucks for a shirt when I could go much cheaper at Walmart. But when it comes to cars I am cheap – maybe because cars are “big ticket” items.

Eric Miller: I can’t find COG (Center Of Gravity) data on either Outlook or minivan – would appreciate it if anyone has this. But I do see that total vehicle height: Outlook = 72.8″, Odyssey = 68.8 or 70″ (depending on model). Track is about the same between vehicles. This ~4″ difference seems significant to me. But I agree that electronic stab. control does reduce rollovers – recent studies have shown this.

You actually drove the Outlook and I sensed that you thought it was a pretty good vehicle. Do you have any insight as to all the negativity toward this vehicle?

When I look at my Freestyle or these lambdas, I see a modern station wagon. However I may be biased because that’s what my family had growing up. Do you think this is more station wagon or more SUV?

It does have Stabilitrak with ‘rollover mitigation’ for those truly worried.

Yes safety is important. But I don’t agree with all you say.

1. Some SUV’s weigh much more. But they have high centers of gravity that greatly increase rollover risk (statistics are clear on this) and they extra weight hurts handling which makes accident more likely.
2. You compare a Freestyle to a Mini – this is what is called a “straw-man argument”. A very-small car such as a Mini will be more dangerous in collisions but a minivan is actually statistically very safe.
3. Maybe I am too idealistic, but I also consider safety of *other* vehicle. Mass for the sake of mass (and height for the sake of roll-over, er I mean “visibility”) endangers other drivers to some extent.

Regarding #3: if I buy a car with better handling and braking, or driving more carefully I increase everyone’s safety. If I use a seat belt I increase my safety at no expense to others. But trying to “out mass” other drivers will decrease safety of other drivers, all else being equal.

I don’t want to sound over-moralistic about #3, I drive a 4,300 lb minivan for family use, and could likely get by with something smaller. But other driver’s safety is one consideration.

Some people say the minivan market is going away – my opinion is that reports of the minivan’s death are greatly exaggerated – but maybe I’m wrong. Americans consistently reject useful efficient body styles (mini-vans, station wagons, hatch-backs). Again we reject the practical because we can afford to (example extra 5-15 k$ to buy large SUV vs. minivan, plus extra gas)

Using that logic, we’d be even safer in Sherman tanks.

In my opinion, safety also includes the ability to AVOID accidents as much as surving the impact. A vehicle with lower weigh and a low center of gravity, brakes better, handles better, and is harder to roll over. As a result, the driver has greater control of his vehicle, an important safety aspect.

If GM used the lighter SRX platform and dropped in the 275HP V6 powertrain in it, wouldn’t they have a better performing CUV with better gas mileage than they do with the Lambda platform? With its rear wheel bias, it could’ve been a real perfomance star without the need for the NorthStar V8 option the Caddy presently uses.

tall vehicles roll over. they dont turn very well. like u said, the laws of physics cannot be ignored. I would rather be in a small easy to maneuver vehicle, than a suv on stilts any day.

Probably not that extreme, but I get it.

Saturn wants to move a little upscale and the SKY and Aura were the first round. The Outlook is by far and away the most expensive vehicle ever to grace their showrooms.

Wow, that is so true!

But why on earth would people buy a Saturn, of all things, to project their self-image?! That’s like buying a cooking pan for musical purposes.

Buying a vehicle in US is much like buying clothing. You could shop local garage sales and thrift stores and get clothes for virtually nothing, but few people do this (actually I do know some people actually cheaper than I am who do this). You could go to Walmart and get perfectly functional clothes for not much more. But instead we buy “fashionable” clothes to impress ourselves and to impress others.

Not all machine purchases are like this. Imagine your air conditioner goes bad and you get two quotes for replacement: 4000$ for a reliable unit with good efficiency, or 8,000$ for bigger unit with worse efficiency but that looks really impressive and has capability that will never be used. Most people would not spend extra on this, but millions will spend extra on the bigger, more expensive, less efficient vehicle. Why? A vehicle is projection of the owner’s image.

Actually this is good news in a way. In US we are so wealthy that we no longer simply buy vehicles that get the job done – we can afford vehicles for image. We spend 100’s of billions hauling billions of tons of un-needed steel down the road – life libery and the pursuit of happiness I guess. If you don’t believe this look at the after-market wheel industry: we spend more than the GNP of some countries buying giant wheels that offer same or worse handling (I think they are ugly but am in minority I guess).

Back to SUV’s and big trucks: If someone does not need big towing capability and they buy a 5,400 lb Tahoe they are hauling around about 1000 lb un-needed steel. With an Outlook this is 600 lb un-needed steel and they are getting the better seating of the minivan. As an optimist I would say better the glass too-full than way-too-full.

(and as a minivan driver I’d rather get in a wrech with a 4,900 lb outlook than a 5,400 lb Tahoe)

The point being that if you need an SUV, by all means go out and get yourself one that does the job.

These CUVs are poseurs that aren’t as competent as SUVs or as cars.”

I didn’t actually mention CUVs at all. I was just commenting that a lot of people who post here seem to imply that no one ever actually needs a proper off road vehicle.

But, to answer your question: No, I’m not particularly a fan of CUVs. I think they compromise on space and performance so that you end up with the worst of two distinct categories rather than a superior product.

If you need to haul people and stuff, a minivan is probably best. If you need to tow, a truck or truck based SUV is probably best.

However; for people who can only afford one vehicle, often have to tow a trailer, and have a large family to move around, a big CUV like this might be just right.

The fact that the Impreza made it, speaks volumes to perceived needs vs. actual.”

Or it speaks volumes about the ability of the drivers :-P (j/k)

Still, I think your assesment that you “struggled” in the jacked up 4×4 is probably a bit off. No Impreza is going to be able to rock crawl like a proper ORV.

I’m not saying that a whole bunch of people (probably most of them) who buy SUVs or CUVs for their off-road capability *couldn’t* get by with a Subaru, but there are definitely situations in which I’d *rather* be in a Wrangler Rubicon than a Legacy GT.

…

And it’s a Para-Ordnance PXT Hi-cap in the nightstand

My point is that we struggled in a jacked up 4×4 with low gears to come up that trail.

The fact that the Impreza made it, speeaks volumes to perceived needs vs. actual.

Oh, and the Glock under your pillow? Make sure the safety is on.