Jump to content
Create New...
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Review: 2018 Mazda CX-9 vs. Volkswagen Atlas

      Taking the temperature of the large three-row crossover

    The three-row full-size crossover has taken the place of large SUVs as the vehicle of choice for growing families. Crossovers offer the tall ride height and large space, but not at the cost of fuel economy and ride quality. Recently, I spent a week in the 2018 Mazda CX-9 and Volkswagen Atlas. These two models could not be any different; one is focused on providing driving enjoyment, while the other is concerned about providing enough space for cargo and passengers. Trying to determine which one was the best would prove to be a difficult task.

    Exterior

    There is no contest between these two when it comes to design as the CX-9 blows the Atlas out of the water. The overall look balances aggressive and elegance traits. For the front, Mazda has angled the clip to give off a sporting profile while a large grille and a set of slim headlights accentuate this. Move around to the side and you’ll notice the CX-9 has quite a long front end and the rear roof pillars are angled slightly forward. These design cues help make the CX-9 look slightly smaller than it actually is.

    Someone once described a Volkswagen vehicle as “looking like a bit of a square, but a posh square.” That’s how I would sum up the Atlas’ design; it is basically a box on wheels. There are some nice touches such as the LED headlights that come standard on all models and chunky fenders. The 18-inch alloy wheels that come with the SE w/Technology look somewhat small on the Atlas, but that is likely due to the large size of the vehicle.

    Interior

    The Atlas’ interior very much follows the ideals of the exterior, which are uncomplicated and utilitarian. While it does fall flat when compared to the CX-9’s luxury design, Volkswagen nails the ergonomics. Most of the controls are within easy reach of driver and passenger. One touch that I really like is the climate control slightly angled upward. Not only does this make it easier to reach, but you can quickly glance down to see the current settings. There is only a small amount of soft-touch material used throughout the Atlas’ interior, the rest being made up of hard plastics. While that is slightly disappointing as other crossovers are adding more soft-touch materials, Volkswagen knows that kids are quite rough to vehicles.

    If there is one benefit to Volkswagen’s plain styling on the outside, it is the massive interior. I haven’t been in such a spacious three-row crossover since the last GM Lambda I drove. Beginning with the third-row, I found that my 5’9” frame actually fit with only my knees just touching the rear of the second-row. Moving the second row slightly forward allows for a little more legroom. Getting in and out of the third-row is very easy as the second-row tilts and moves forward, providing a wide space. This particular tester came with a second-row bench seat. A set of captain chairs are available as an option on SE and above. Sitting back here felt like I was in a limousine with abundant head and legroom. The seats slide and recline which allows passengers to find that right position. The only downside to both rear rows is there isn’t enough padding for long trips. For the front seat, the driver gets a ten-way power seat while the passenger makes do with only a power recline and manual adjustments. No complaints about comfort as the Atlas’ front seats had the right amount of padding and firmness for any trip length.

    The cargo area is quite huge. With all seats up, the Atlas offers 20.6 cubic feet of space. This increases to 55.5 cubic feet when the third-row is folded and 96.8 cubic feet with both rows folded. Only the new Chevrolet Traverse beats the Atlas with measurements of 23, 58.1, and 98.2 cubic feet.

    As a way to differentiate itself from other automakers, Mazda is trying to become more premium. This is clearly evident in the CX-9’s interior. The dash is beautiful with contouring used throughout, and a mixture of brushed aluminum and soft-touch plastics with a grain texture. If I were to cover up the Mazda badge on the steering wheel and ask you to identify the brand, you might think it was from a German automaker. Ergonomics aren’t quite as good as the Atlas as you have to reach for certain controls like those for the climate system.

    The CX-9’s front seats don’t feel quite as spacious when compared to the Atlas with a narrow cockpit and the rakish exterior are to blame. Still, most drivers should be able to find a position that works. The seats themselves have a sporting edge with increased side bolstering and firm cushions. I found the seats to be quite comfortable and didn’t have issues of not having enough support. Moving to the second row, Mazda only offers a bench seat configuration. This is disappointing considering all of the CX-9’s competitors offer captain chairs as an option. There is more than enough legroom for most passengers, but those six-feet and above will find headroom to be a bit tight. Getting into the third-row is slightly tough. Like the Atlas, the CX-9’s second row slides and tilts to allow access. But space is noticeably smaller and does require some gymnastics to pass through. Once seated, I found it to be quite cramped with little head and legroom. This is best reserved for small kids.

    Cargo area is another weak point to the CX-9. With both back seats up, there is only 14.4 cubic feet. This puts it behind most of the competition aside from the GMC Acadia which has 12.8. It doesn’t get any better when the seats are folded. With the third-row down, the CX-9 has 38.2 cubic feet. Fold down the second-row and it expands to 71.2 cubic feet. To use the GMC Acadia again, it offers 41.7 cubic feet when the third-row is folded and rises to 79 with both rows. Keep in mind, the Acadia is about six inches shorter than the CX-9.

    Infotainment

    All CX-9’s come equipped with the Mazda Connect infotainment system. The base Sport comes with a 7-inch touchscreen, while the Touring and above use a larger 8-inch screen. A rotary knob and set of redundant buttons on the center console control the system. Using Mazda Connect is a bit of a mixed bag. The interface is beginning to look a bit dated with the use of dark colors and a dull screen. Trying to use the touchscreen is an exercise in frustration as it is not easy to tell which parts are touch-enabled and not. On the upside, moving around Mazda Connect is a breeze when using the knob and buttons. Currently, Mazda doesn’t offer Apple CarPlay or Android Auto compatibility. Thankfully, this is being remedied with the 2019 model as Touring models and above will come with both.

    For the Atlas, Volkswagen offers three different systems. A 6.5-inch touchscreen is standard on the S. Moving up to either the SE, SE w/Technology, or SEL nets you an 8-inch screen. The top line SEL Premium adds navigation to the 8-inch system. All of the systems feature Apple CarPlay and Android Auto compatibility. The current Volkswagen system is one of the easiest to use thanks in part to intuitive menu structure and quick responses. Moving through menus or presets is easy as the system reacts to the swiping gesture like you would do on your smartphone. There are a couple of downsides to the Volkswagen system. One is there is no haptic feedback when pressing the shortcut buttons on either side of the screen. Also, the glass surface becomes littered with fingerprints very quickly. 

    I did have an issue with the system when trying to use Apple CarPlay. At times, applications such as Spotify would freeze up. I could exit out to the CarPlay interface, but was unable to get the apps unfrozen until I shut the vehicle off. After resetting my iPhone, this problem went away. This leaves me wondering how much of this problem was with my phone and not the infotainment system.

    Powertrain

    Both of these crossovers are equipped with turbocharged four-cylinder engines. The CX-9 has a 2.5L producing either 227 or 250 (on premium fuel) horsepower and 310 pound-feet of torque. The Atlas has a 2.0L producing 235 horsepower and 258 pound-feet. An optional 3.6L V6 with 276 horsepower is available for the Atlas. For the Mazda, power is routed to a six-speed automatic and the choice of front or all-wheel drive. The Volkswagen makes do with an eight-speed automatic and front-wheel drive only. If you want AWD, you need the V6.

    Thanks to its higher torque figure, the CX-9 leaves the Atlas in the dust. There is barely any lag coming from the turbo-four. Instead, it delivers a linear throttle response and a steady stream of power.  NVH levels are noticeably quieter than the Atlas’ turbo-four. The six-speed automatic delivers seamless shifts and is quick to downshift when you need extra power such as merging.

    The turbo-four in the Atlas seems slightly overwhelmed at first. When leaving a stop, I found that there was a fair amount of turbo-lag. This is only exacerbated if the stop-start system is turned on. Once the turbo was spooling, the four-cylinder did a surprising job of moving the 4,222 pound Atlas with no issue. Stab the throttle and the engine comes into life, delivering a smooth and constant stream of power. The eight-speed automatic provided quick and smooth shifts, although it was sometimes hesitant to downshift when more power was called for.

    Fuel Economy

    Both of these models are close in fuel economy. EPA says the CX-9 AWD should return 20 City/26 Highway/23 Combined, while the Atlas 2.0T will get 22/26/24. During the week, the CX-9 returned 22.5 mpg in mostly city driving and the Atlas got 27.3 mpg with a 60/40 mix of highway and city driving. The eight-speed transmission in the Atlas makes a huge difference.

    Ride & Handling

    The CX-9 is clearly the driver’s choice. On a winding road, the crossover feels quite nimble thanks to a well-tuned suspension. There is a slight amount of body roll due to the tall ride height, but nothing that will sway your confidence. Steering has some heft when turning and feels quite responsive. Despite the firm suspension, the CX-9’s ride is supple enough to iron out most bumps. Only large imperfections and bumps would make their way inside. Barely any wind and road noise made it inside the cabin.

    The Atlas isn’t far behind in handling. Volkswagen’s suspension turning helps keep body roll in check and makes the crossover feel smaller than it actually is. The only weak point is the steering which feels somewhat light when turning. Ride quality is slightly better than the CX-9 as Atlas feels like riding on a magic carpet when driving on bumpy roads. Some of this can be attributed to smaller wheels. There is slightly more wind noise coming inside the cabin.

    Value

    It would be unfair to directly compare these two crossovers due to the large gap in price. Instead, I will be comparing them with the other’s similar trim.

    The 2018 Volkswagen Atlas SE with Technology begins at $35,690 for the 2.0T FWD. With destination, my test car came to $36,615, The Technology adds a lot of desirable features such as three-zone climate control, adaptive cruise control, automatic emergency braking, blind spot monitoring with rear-cross traffic alert, forward collision warning, and lane departure alert. The Mazda CX-9 Touring is slightly less expensive at $35,995 with destination and matches the Atlas on standard features, including all of the safety kit. But we’re giving the Atlas the slight edge as you do get more space for not that much more money.

    Over at the CX-9, the Grand Touring AWD begins at $42,270. With a couple of options including the Soul Red paint, the as-tested price came to $43,905. The comparable Atlas V6 SEL with 4Motion is only $30 more expensive when you factor in destination. Both come closely matched in terms of equipment with the only differences being the Grand Touring has navigation, while the SEL comes with a panoramic sunroof. This one is a draw as it will come down whether space or luxury is more important to you.

    Verdict

    Coming in second is the Mazda CX-9. It may have the sharpest exterior in the class, a premium interior that could embarrass some luxury cars, and pleasing driving characteristics. But ultimately, the CX-9 falls down on the key thing buyers want; space. It trails most everyone in passenger and cargo space. That is ultimately the price you pay for all of the positives listed. 

    For a first attempt, Volkswagen knocked it out of the park with the Atlas. It is a bit sluggish when leaving a stop and doesn’t have as luxurious of an interior as the CX-9. But Volkswagen gave the Atlas one of the largest interiors of the class, a chassis that balances a smooth ride with excellent body control, impressive fuel economy, and a price that won’t break the bank.

    Both of these crossovers are impressive and worthy of being at the top of the consideration list. But at the end of the day, the Atlas does the three-row crossover better than the CX-9.

    Disclaimer: Mazda and Volkswagen Provided the Vehicles, Insurance, and One Tank of Gas

    Year: 2018
    Make: Mazda
    Model: CX-9
    Trim: Grand Touring AWD
    Engine: Turbocharged 2.5L Skyactiv-G Four-Cylinder
    Driveline: Six-Speed Automatic, All-Wheel Drive
    Horsepower @ RPM: 227 @ 5,000 (Regular), 250 @ 5,000 (Premium)
    Torque @ RPM: 310 @ 2,000 rpm
    Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 20/26/23
    Curb Weight: 4,361 lbs
    Location of Manufacture: Hiroshima, Japan
    Base Price: $42,470
    As Tested Price: $43,905 (Includes $940.00 Destination Charge)

    Options:
    Soul Red Metallic - $595.00
    Cargo Mat - $100.00

    Year: 2018
    Make: Volkswagen
    Model: Atlas
    Trim: 2.0T SE w/Technology
    Engine: Turbocharged 2.0L DOHC 16-Valve TSI Four-Cylinder
    Driveline: Eight-Speed Automatic, Front-Wheel Drive
    Horsepower @ RPM: 235 @ 4,500
    Torque @ RPM: 258 @ 1,600
    Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 22/26/24
    Curb Weight: 4,222 lbs
    Location of Manufacture: Chattanooga, TN
    Base Price: $35,690
    As Tested Price: $36,615 (Includes $925.00 Destination Charge)

    Options: N/A


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    2 hours ago, frogger said:

    27mpg combined is pretty impressive for a vehicle that large (the Atlas), though I wonder how the performance and MPG would suffer had it been the AWD model.

     

    I can tell you fuel economy would take a major hit - EPA figures are 17 City/23 Highway/19 Combined

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    31 minutes ago, William Maley said:

    I can tell you fuel economy would take a major hit - EPA figures are 17 City/23 Highway/19 Combined

    WOW for AWD that really is a hit. Thank you

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Wow, surprised to see the Atlas get the nod. 

     

    While not an enthusiast vehicle, it nails the mission statement buyers in this segment demand. If they just gave us the same turbo-V6 it gets in China, the thing would be near perfect. The old N/A VR6 has just reached the end of it's lifespan.

    • Like 1
    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Fantastic write-up. 

    The Mazda is an excellent vehicle, but for the mission statement of a large crossover, the Atlas is just a better vehicle all around.  I view the CX-9 the same way I view the Infiniti QX70, a sportier crossover best for singles or DINKs. 

    • Like 1
    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    14 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    Fantastic write-up. 

    The Mazda is an excellent vehicle, but for the mission statement of a large crossover, the Atlas is just a better vehicle all around.  I view the CX-9 the same way I view the Infiniti QX70, a sportier crossover best for singles or DINKs. 

    I somewhat disagree.  CX-9 while compromised on space vs Atlas or Pilot still has plenty of space for a family of four (my family is family of four so I speak from experience).

    Personally, Atlas might be very practical but I just can't get past the ugly and boring exterior.  I would rather have Pilot or Ascent if I needed something with more room than CX-9. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    7 minutes ago, ykX said:

    I somewhat disagree.  CX-9 while compromised on space vs Atlas or Pilot still has plenty of space for a family of four (my family is family of four so I speak from experience).

    Personally, Atlas might be very practical but I just can't get past the ugly and boring exterior.  I would rather have Pilot or Ascent if I needed something with more room than CX-9. 

    I didn't say they were identical... just that the CX-9 is less roomy than most others in its class and has more of an emphasis on sport.   Someone buying one of these to haul the rugrats around usually is going for the most cubic feet per dollar.  For that, there is the Atlas, the Pilot, and the Traverse. 

    On looks alone, the CX-9 every day and twice on Sundays. 

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    I didn't say they were identical... just that the CX-9 is less roomy than most others in its class and has more of an emphasis on sport.   Someone buying one of these to haul the rugrats around usually is going for the most cubic feet per dollar.  For that, there is the Atlas, the Pilot, and the Traverse. 

    On looks alone, the CX-9 every day and twice on Sundays. 

    Sure. CX-9 is compromised in terms of space but after I drove one I got hooked and I think it will be my wife's next vehicle.  But I love driving (so does my wife to some extent). Most of the people I know will go just for practicality or the badge. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    22 minutes ago, ykX said:

    I somewhat disagree.  CX-9 while compromised on space vs Atlas or Pilot still has plenty of space for a family of four (my family is family of four so I speak from experience).

    Personally, Atlas might be very practical but I just can't get past the ugly and boring exterior.  I would rather have Pilot or Ascent if I needed something with more room than CX-9. 

    LOL, I find the Mazda to be butt ugly and trying to hard to look like the rest of Mazda ugly car family. Rather take an Atlas that truly looks more SUV like and deal with a boring look but more functionality.

    3 minutes ago, ykX said:

    Sure. CX-9 is compromised in terms of space but after I drove one I got hooked and I think it will be my wife's next vehicle.  But I love driving (so does my wife to some extent). Most of the people I know will go just for practicality or the badge. 

    Not ture, I love to drive and love performance as to why I own a Trailblazer SS. While not the best on interior space, it looks like a traditional SUV and drives like a Corvette out of hell. 😈

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'm fairly certain.... no... super certain... that the CX-9 will beat a TBSS the moment a corner is involved.  The TBSS was fast for its day, but it was never a renowned handling vehicle. 

    • Agree 4
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    23 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    I'm fairly certain.... no... super certain... that the CX-9 will beat a TBSS the moment a corner is involved.  The TBSS was fast for its day, but it was never a renowned handling vehicle. 

    That would be a fun drive comparison.  Unless they drastically updated the driving characteristics from the 2018 model year that I had for 2 weeks, I would say in comparison to the one I drove on my 25 wedding anniversary, that no my TBSS beats it. I doubt the CX9 could handle what I have done in the 130 -150mph range of my SS.

    • Haha 3
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    My SO likes the CX-9 more than most CUV's because it is  stylish and smallish for a 3 row CUV, but then she is 5'0" and we don't have 3 kids..  I wonder how it compares to the 2019 Sorrento V6.

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, dfelt said:

    That would be a fun drive comparison.  Unless they drastically updated the driving characteristics from the 2018 model year that I had for 2 weeks, I would say in comparison to the one I drove on my 25 wedding anniversary, that no my TBSS beats it. I doubt the CX9 could handle what I have done in the 130 -150mph range of my SS.

    Just no... let it go.  There is no way a live axle, 15 year old, body on frame SUV is going to out-handle a brand new, unibody crossover with independent suspension and an advanced computer controlled AWD system.  Even just the center of gravity is going to be a giant disadvantage on the TBSS if nothing else not to mention weight. 

    • Agree 3
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    What's funny about it Cubical-aka-Moltar ?  It looks better, it is RWD/AWD with longitudinal engine...  it certainly has more macho presence than the ninny Envision.

    • Haha 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    7 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

    What's funny about it Cubical-aka-Moltar ?  It looks better, it is RWD/AWD with longitudinal engine...  it certainly has more macho presence than the ninny Envision.

    Most Rainiers now are rusty old used SUVs, nothing 'macho' about that...

    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    14 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    Just no... let it go.  There is no way a live axle, 15 year old, body on frame SUV is going to out-handle a brand new, unibody crossover with independent suspension and an advanced computer controlled AWD system.  Even just the center of gravity is going to be a giant disadvantage on the TBSS if nothing else not to mention weight. 

    Yes, from an engineering standpoint all the box's are ticked and it does beat my TBSS. Take driving experience into consideration and I still would put it up against a CX9 and in most cases unless it is another well experienced professional driver would win.

    But your point is valid and I do agree with it from that standpoint.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    13 hours ago, ocnblu said:

    What's funny about it Cubical-aka-Moltar ?  It looks better, it is RWD/AWD with longitudinal engine...  it certainly has more macho presence than the ninny Envision.

    For it's day when new, not a bad looking SUV, but the Envision wins hands down as the better looking ute.

    See the source image

    See the source image

    • Haha 1
    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    In the Ranier's time, off the top of my head, give me a 2007 4Runner Limited...
    In the Envision's time, give me almost any other ~45K two row CUV released in the last two years.

     

     

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    16 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

    I don't need a 3rd row, so for the price, styling, features and broad range of trim levels, for a midsize, I'll stick with (surprise) Jeep Grand Cherokee.   

    We only occasionally use third row for short trips (kids friends, or if we going somewhere close with parents) so a tight third row not a huge problem for us.  But if we didn't need third row I think Grand Cherokee would be a strong contender for us.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    14 minutes ago, ykX said:

    But if we didn't need third row I think Grand Cherokee would be a strong contender for us

    I love the JGC and Edge-sized vehicles. Larger, two-row SUVs. 

    • Like 1
    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 hours ago, ykX said:

    We only occasionally use third row for short trips (kids friends, or if we going somewhere close with parents) so a tight third row not a huge problem for us.  But if we didn't need third row I think Grand Cherokee would be a strong contender for us.

     

    3 hours ago, ccap41 said:

    I love the JGC and Edge-sized vehicles. Larger, two-row SUVs. 

    I'm split. For us it is feast or famine with regards to the number of passengers we have. Usually we could get away with even just a BMW Z4 because it is only the two of us... but sometimes we have the parental units so we need a rear seat.... then on top of that we sometimes also have some fraction of our 7 nieces and nephews riding with us. There are times I want a Suburban and there are times I want an ELR. 

    If we get an SUV, right now the Durango is the top of the list, JGC and Explorer are tied for 2nd.

    I may still end up in a crew-cab pickup though. 

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    55 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

     

    I'm split. For us it is feast or famine with regards to the number of passengers we have. Usually we could get away with even just a BMW Z4 because it is only the two of us... but sometimes we have the parental units so we need a rear seat.... then on top of that we sometimes also have some fraction of our 7 nieces and nephews riding with us. There are times I want a Suburban and there are times I want an ELR. 

    If we get an SUV, right now the Durango is the top of the list, JGC and Explorer are tied for 2nd.

    I may still end up in a crew-cab pickup though. 

    Put the nephews in the truck bed, they will be fine! :)

    • Haha 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Aside from the derivative belt line that swings up between the C- and D-pillars (really, must everyone do that?) and the over-sized fender flares, the Atlas is the better-looking of the two, especially in its proportions. As for the Mazda, the styling that looks good on the 3 and 6 sedans does not translate well to the CX-9.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, ykX said:

    Put the nephews in the truck bed, they will be fine! :)

    We survived the 70's and 80's putting the kids there with no problem before the Gov had to protect us from ourselves! :P

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 8/15/2018 at 4:55 PM, frogger said:

    My SO likes the CX-9 more than most CUV's because it is  stylish and smallish for a 3 row CUV, but then she is 5'0" and we don't have 3 kids..  I wonder how it compares to the 2019 Sorrento V6.

     

    If I ever get my hands on one, I'll report back

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I wouldn’t mind having something w a Hemi.  The V6 is fine in my GC, but a Challenger SRT 392 would be a nice midlife crisis toy.  Though I’m also interested in a Miata.  I know, I’m weird...I find both hefty V8 modern muscle cars and lightweight traditional-style sports cars appealing...

    Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 9/10/2018 at 6:31 PM, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

    I wouldn’t mind having something w a Hemi.  The V6 is fine in my GC, but a Challenger SRT 392 would be a nice midlife crisis toy.  Though I’m also interested in a Miata.  I know, I’m weird...I find both hefty V8 modern muscle cars and lightweight traditional-style sports cars appealing...

    Previously, I found owning multiple cars nice. Right now I want to find something fairly conservative when I replace the Beetle R line....perhaps the GTI or WRX. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 8/16/2018 at 12:31 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

    I prefer the mini-van based Rendezvous myself. 

    spontaneous side thought, when is the next Hyundai Vercruz hitting the market?

    Cx9 to me has been a laggy little bitch.  At least when i test drove it couple times when the turbo 4 first came out.  Plus its intrusive console, a no go.  Again, Mazda getting too much love from whomever is writing about it IMO.  Sometimes I wish Mazda would just go away (toyota too).  CX9 is compromised in function too.  Unless its the DINK scenario like you mentioned earlier.

    I liked the Atlas, but that was the 6, and the Atlas 6 is a gas hog.  And while not turbo / lag, it's slow for a v6.  I should try the turbo 4.

    In the end why even waste the time.  Skip em both and just go get a friggin Enclave and be done with it.  Or a Traverse.  They are both really good!

     

    Edited by regfootball
    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • google-news-icon.png



  • Community Hive Community Hive

    Community Hive allows you to follow your favorite communities all in one place.

    Follow on Community Hive
  • google-news-icon.png

  • Subscribe to Cheers & Gears

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001 we've brought you real content and honest opinions, not AI-generated stuff with no feeling or opinions influenced by the manufacturers.

    Please consider subscribing. Subscriptions can be as little as $1.75 a month, and a paid subscription drops most ads.*
     

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Plastic cladding = off road.  Instead of killing the Sonata, they should just put plastic body cladding down the side and raise the price by $10k and call it the Sonata HD Overlander X.  Instant hit.
    • Considering a planet with 8 Billion and he sold almost 2 million cars, then he is covering .025% of the population compared to other auto companies. I think 2024 going into 2025 we will see other auto companies top Tesla. You and I are two peas in a pod as I also was up on a hill watching the implosion and thinking what a waste as it was a great building. I love the Kingdome and hate the new stadium.  Agree it was surreal to see the ship hit the support pillar and the whole building just collapse. Be interesting to see what replaces it as today bridges built like that are not allowed due to the exact nature of how it collapsed.  Yes, Tesla is a love or hate and the minimalist approach is not for everyone. I honestly have to agree with the comment @smk4565 I believe made that the touch screen only will be the future of cheap autos and switches and buttons will be the higher end autos. Interesting times we live in for sure.
    • Decent upgrade to the aging 2024 model. Nice to see they are reducing costs of the curved screen in the EVs by pushing it out across the Hyundai Family and into Kia. The one thing I do not like is all the Chrome. 🤢 🤮
    • Today at the New York International Auto Show, Hyundai unveiled an update to its little truck, the Hyundai Santa Cruz. The refresh to the exterior is relatively mild, though it features a more menacing grille with bolder verticle lines.  Updated running lights and new wheel designs add to the fresher look. Inside, there is a new steering wheel, infotainment system, and instrument panel. on upper trims, an optional panoramic curved display houses dual 12.3-inch displays for driver and entertainment. The plenty-capable powertrains carry over with either a 191-horsepower direct injected 2.5-liter 4-cylinder or a turbo-charged version of of the same engine with 281 horsepower.  The transmission for the entry-level engine is a traditional 8-speed automatic, while the turbo-charged model gets an 8-speed dual-clutch transmission. Santa Cruzes with the turbo engine gain a new tow mode for enhanced towing control.  Both powertrains are towing capable with a 3,500 lb rating for the entry engine and a stout 5,000 lb rating for the turbo models when equipped with all-wheel drive. New for 2025 is an XRT trim geared even more towards outdoor adventure. It features a trim-specific front fascia and grille, special 18-inch wheels with all-terrain tires, an increased approach angle, front tow hooks, and surround-view monitoring.    The 2025 Hyundai Santa Cruz goes on sale this summer. View full article
    • Regarding Tesla - it's either love or hate with these vehicles.  A college friend I'll be seeing when in SoCal next month has 2 of them, and I'll probably be riding in both of them - one is his sleeker S model and I forgot which the other one (that his wife drives) is.  In certain places, people have a lot of disposable income and having a Tesla goes with the landscape. Minimalist(ic) isn't necessarily bad.  We all remember the adage "less is more."  I'll vouch that the workmanship of the interior is good and I can also vouch that the overall look (including the centered everything on one display) is ugly.  I will say that EV motors are supposed to last a long time but the battery replacement is very expensive and the range is currently not that optimal. I did not like the model Y I had for less than 1 day.  Also, its exterior is mostly ugly.  That's my opinion. This isn't a discussion I want to get into.  I would much prefer a more user-friendly EV ... and not just yet. - - - - - What I was randomly going to say: I'm not sure whether I'm in shock or still feeling surreal as to what happened in Baltimore.  At first, I thought a ship just hit something on a bridge.  Then I saw the footage and that's the surreal part ... the domino-like collapse of the entire structure and the size of the ship.  I remember having to figure out the forces of either tension or compression on each member of a truss-like structure when I was in school.   A group of us sat there for about 3 or 4 hours one night - with some Mountain Dew - to work that out. I don't believe I've been on that bridge since it's on the outer beltway, but it's numbered as part of the U.S. interstate system.  From looking at the map, it is the major bridge on the entrance to/exit from Baltimore Harbor.  I hope they find the 6 individuals who were working on it fixing potholes in the middle of the night who fell down with the bridge.  The ship giving a mayday is what allowed them to shut down both approaches to the bridge just in time.   The weird thing is that it happened on March 26.  IIRC, the deliberate (domino-like) implosion of the reinforced concrete Kingdome in Seattle happened on March 26, 2000 (no rain that day) and people were sitting on slopes overlooking downtown to see that happen.  But that's how it is with planned implosions.  I went there that morning and have photos of the Kingdome's last day somewhere. https://www.seahawks.com/video/kingdome-implosion-hd It was indeed March 26, 2000.  I was one of the few who liked the Kingdome.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search

Change privacy settings