Much to the chagrin of many of us, a lot of modern cars aren’t “cars” at all, but rather SUVs. Many of them are car-based, rather than truck-based, and are therefore called “crossovers,” a term that used to mean a country song that made it on to the pop charts. Whatever you want to call them, they’ve become the default vehicle for many Americans. Today, continuing with our exploration of cars under fifteen years old, we’re going to check out two largish crossovers with three rows of seats.
Yesterday’s small car battle wasn’t much of a battle at all. The little pink Chevy Spark absolutely got its clock cleaned by the tobacco-brown Fiat. Many of you thought that if you were going to drive a small car for economic reasons, it should have a little panache and be a little bit fun to drive, and the Spark just couldn’t hang with the Fiat in that regard.
I have admired the Fiat 500 since it first came out, and it’s one of few modern small cars I think I’d really enjoy. But I feel like if I settled for an automatic one, I’d always regret not getting a manual. The Spark seems like it would be a dull appliance either way, so it may as well be an automatic for convenience. But between these two, I think I’d still take the Fiat, and do the same thing I did with my automatic Neon: look up how to do a manual swap, think about it, price out parts, but never get around to it.
A lot of car enthusiasts look down on SUVs and crossovers, but I completely understand the appeal of a big box on wheels. It makes particular sense if you want just one car that can do everything, which, I’m told, is how some people do it. There’s no shortage of choices if this is what you’re looking for, but these two jumped out at me as being fairly evenly matched. They’re both front-wheel-drive, they’re about the same size, and they both are north of 200,000 miles and still going strong. Let’s check them out.
2015 Buick Enclave Premium – $4,250
Engine/drivetrain: 3.6-liter DOHC V6, six-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Dallas, TX
Odometer reading: 205,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Considering all the GM brands we’ve lost over the past couple of decades, I can’t believe Buick is still around. Pontiac is a memory, Oldsmobile ended not with a bang but a whimper, and yet Buick is still peddling the same chrome-laden dinosaurs it has for decades. Well, not the exact same, but the same idea. This Enclave is essentially just a Roadmaster Estate for the twenty-first century, minus the fake woodgrain sides. And if the nostalgia train keeps rolling long enough, that may make a return as well.
The Enclave shares a platform with the Chevy Traverse. It’s front-wheel-drive, with a transversely mounted V6. All-wheel drive is available, but it isn’t necessary down in Texas, so why deal with the extra fuel and complexity? The V6 is GM’s 3.6-liter “High Feature” unit, which replaced the bulletproof (and decidedly low-feature) 3800. The 3.6 has some issues with the timing chain and oil consumption, but this one has made it to 205,000 miles, so either it has been well cared for or it has had some repairs. It’s a one-owner car, so maybe you can get your hands on some service records.
It’s in good condition inside, and it does look comfy in there. The seller also says it “smells good” inside, which could mean a lot of things to a lot of people, but hopefully it means it doesn’t smell like cigarettes or feet or something. The air conditioner works fine, too.
The outside looks good, but the seller does disclose that it has had a minor accident in the past. It’s all fixed up now, and I don’t see any problems besides a couple of missing wheel center caps.
2016 Mazda CX-9 – $5,200
Engine/drivetrain: Turbocharged 2.5-liter DOHC inline 4, six-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Dallas, TX
Odometer reading: 248,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
It’s hard to believe that this car is made by the same company that makes the Miata. Mazda’s claim to fame has been small, light, zippy cars for many decades, and a three-row SUV is sort of the antithesis of that. But I guess if you want a big SUV that doesn’t handle like a big SUV, you get one from the company known for sports cars.
Besides sports cars, Mazda is known for its unusual engines. The rotary is the most famous example of this, but Mazda’s piston engines are often pretty cool, too. In recent years, Mazda engines have been marketed under the Skyactiv name, which isn’t a specific design or technology, but rather a combination of attributes like high compression ratios and direct fuel injection designed to improve efficiency and lower emissions. The engine in the CX-9 is a turbocharged 2.5-liter four that makes 227 horsepower and 310 pound-feet of torque, which is plenty for a vehicle like this. It has nearly a quarter million miles on it, but it runs and drives just fine.
We don’t get very good interior photos of this one; I think they took this one from across the street. All the ad says is that everything works fine, including the air conditioning. I guess you’d have to go look at it in person to assess its condition accurately.
I have to give Mazda credit for the styling of this car, too. It’s a lot better looking than most crossovers. It looks like it’s in good shape, too. I don’t even see any door dings, which is amazing for a car with this mileage.
These aren’t what you’d call exciting cars, but they are practical. If you have a big family or need to travel with your own pit crew, they make a lot of sense. These two have a lot of miles, but that doesn’t seem to affect modern cars as much. And looking at higher mileage cars is a great way to save some money. If you were in the market for a big do-it-all family hauler, which one would you go for?
I picked the Buick to be contrarian. Mazda’s look great on paper, but in practice I have not enjoyed the crossovers I have had as rental cars because of the road noise. If they want to make big people movers thats fine, but the interiors need to do more than just look good, they need to feel good and not require the driver to bring ear plugs. Honestly these are both pretty dumb cars, not interesting enough to want to roll the dice, and I will never be attached enough to try and fix them. The Buick interior looks comfortable and I will try to get those service records.
First generation Lambdas were ubiquitous when new and then abruptly disappeared from the roads, suggesting to me that there’s a serious inherent flaw somewhere.
This one is at 200k. My family had a Lambda and they do not age well when miles go up.
3.6 Timing chains, transmissions, interiors that fall apart.
I’m going Mazda on this one even though they have head gasket problems.
Well scheduled maintenance solves all those issues. I have never understood supposed car guys complaining about reliability in a vehicle that they failed to maintain
Neither. This is my absolute most loathed class of car. The ruined minivan for people who think they are are too cool to be seen in a minivan.
And with this sort of mileage, these are just grenades with the pin hanging 99% of the way out. Buying this cheap is false economy, you WILL spend more on fixing one of these than just buying a much lower mileage one to start with. Even as one who CAN DIY just about anything on a car, I wouldn’t touch something like this – my time has too much value, and decent parts cost a fortune these days too. A 200K Volvo 945 – sure, but not these modern crapcans.
I don’t have the same chip on my shoulder about crossovers as you do…but I agree that this is false economy. Unless you knew they had been maintained properly, either one of them could surprise you with a repair cost that exceeds what you’ve just paid for it. It’s less risky to start cheaper.
That said, there’s definitely a class of people who would see themselves as needing a vehicle this shape and size, but would only really have access to one priced like this. If the risky one is $5,000 – $6,000 and that’s what your tax refund was and you have no spare cash or access to credit…then that’s what you buy. Whether or not you really need this kind of car or whether it was poor life choices or circumstance that led you to this point, it is what it is.
If you spend ALL the money you have to buy the vehicle, and it has this many miles on it, you are a moron. It would be the definition of poor life choice. You’d best have comfy walking shoes.
“Neither”
So you don’t know how to play the game! It’s all for fun anyway…
“If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice”
Neither should always be a choice. Quite often, both choices are so bad the only proper decision is to not play the game. This is mutually assured destruction on four wheels.
For that matter – both should always be a choice too.
Those would defeat the whole purpose of this… it’s still true you really don’t know how to play
Sometimes I don’t want to play. That is not the same as not knowing how.
Neither won’t be an option again after I tried it that once. But I just had a wonderfully awful idea.
A third option for the previous day’s loser?
Hey next week how about all projects? Cheap, fun, needs some work which would you rather?
Unless there’s a record of a recent timing chain service, that 3.6 is a ticking time-bomb no matter how well cared for it was.
Have to go Mazda. Nicer vehicle, but a bit of a roll of the dice either way. Not expecting the GM to last much longer, while the Mazda has the turbo that adds risk.
If I could examine full service records on both vehicles I might change my mind, but assuming the Mazda has had proper maintenance / full synthetic oil, etc. It’s just a nice vehicle.
No AWD on the Enclave, and a gearbox that is about 80k miles past its natural lifespan (ask me how I know) – NOPE.
UNLESS you need three booster seats/baby seats in the middle row, side by side – a trick which only the BuiTraversAcadia could pull in this category (12″ wider in the middle row than the closest competitor, back then).
Except it’s not AWD, so might as well get a van instead. Most of these will handle three booster seats in the middle row.
That’s my gripe – these things are just bad minivans. They do nothing better than a proper minivan (and most things worse) other than allow the driver to be under the illusion that they are somehow cooler than a minivan driver.
Even better, the Enclave honestly looks worse than the typical minivan? Who buys that thing and thinks it looks tougher than a van? Clearly people did, but those people apparently don’t have eyes.
Exclusively driven by Cryptkeepers around here. So I assume they all need cataract surgery and thus can only see the chrome and the Buick badges.
I couldn’t disagree more.
Our friends had a 2013 Traverse for a long time, and it was amazing.
Seated 8 adults without batting an eyelid, still keeping some space for luggage, spacious, decent performance, way, WAY higher clearance than any minivan available on the market (AWD Sienna Included) – it’s a real tall SUV that is minivan-sized.
Maybe a bit less space than a proper minivan, but way worth it.
Much closer in interior space to a short wheelbase Tahoe or Suburban than to a Pilot, Highlander, Pathfinder, Explorer – you name it. Not much larger outside.
Excellent AWD performance (we went skiing with them and I was the one driving it around), stock tires were some all-terrain stuff that was good enough on the road and excellent in the snow.
My gripe with the specific one listed here is that it’s NOT Awd, and with the platform in general is that their transmissions seem to… errr… be neither reliable, neither inexpensive to fix. At least the ones from those years.
That same Traverse died revving through all gears sitting still, 500 miles from home, kids and luggage in tow. Quoted $7k for a warrantied rebuilt transmission to be dropped in.
I googled it then to see how much the garage is trying to fleece them – turned out that repair still went for way north of $5k. So not that big of a difference.
You are always welcome to disagree. You will still be wrong. 🙂
That must have taken a lot of thought. I sympathize 🙂
So I was faced with this exact choice back in 2018. I’m a minivan fan and was convinced – like you – that crossovers are inferior in every way to a minivan. So I went out and drove lots of vans and lots of crossovers and even brought one of each home for a test weekend.
As it turns out, passenger volume and sliding doors were the only things that were better about the van (and omg I do love me some sliding doors), but almost evert other checkbox for my own use case ended up favoring the crossover.
I carry a roofbox for my skis, and the crossover I chose (a CX-9 as it turns out!) was about an inch and a half shorter. The roofbox fit in the garage on the crossover and not the van.
Ground clearance! My family does a lot of camping and biking and I regularly carry four bikes on the hitch. Turns out my bike rack dragged on the end of my own driveway behind the van. And it wasn’t even loaded with people or gear – yikes! Since then I’ve discovered that ground clearance is also surprisingly useful at trailheads, event parking areas, and unplowed ski resort parking lots. Even if you never off-road there are all these weird little times when a few extra inches of ground clearance lets you do something you couldn’t otherwise.
Gas mileage: 3 extra MPGs isn’t that much, but that was the advantage of the CX-9 over the Sienna. Why pay for extra gas to drag around extra interior volume you don’t need? (Now there’s a Sienna hybrid and that meaningfully changes the math.)
Handling: it may sound crazy but when the road gets curvy you can actually wring the cx-9 out a bit and it’s no sports car but it’s a LOT more engaging to drive than the van. The van is a comfy cruiser, but when it gets twisty it tends to wallow, while the Mazda stays pretty sharp. As someone who loves to drive and would have to make this my daily driver, this was almost the biggest differentiator.
The crossover also turned out to be better for the dog (I won’t bore you).
Anyway, tldr, I am not remotely surprised that the crossover has replaced the minivan as default family transportation, and yes a lot of it has to do with perceived coolness, but not all of it.
Nice comparison recap. You should do car reviews. Just one suggestion no one ever questioned the benefits of a couple more inches.
Bouya!
No car intended for pavement use has ever been improved by making it higher off the ground and raising the center of gravity.
Thing is, if you are that outdoorsy, a proper SUV is a lot more useful than a pretend SUV. These things are just neither fish nor fowl. Worse to drive than a wagon, yet not really any more capable (and these aren’t even AWD). I don’t buy cars for rare random edge cases that are worse the majority of the time. Despite having lived in Maine for most of my life, and being an avid skier in my youth, I never for the slightest moment found a need for additional ground clearance and AWD on pavement. If I am going off-pavement, I have the proper tool for that job.
In an ideal world we would still get minivans that are actually mini, and not the battlecruisers of today. And of course, it begs the question of how families managed to get by with MUCH smaller vehicles for decades. Not like many people have tons of kids anymore.
But ultimately, you do you.
You also need to remember that while two separate opinions both people can’t be right but they can both be wrong.
Unless one of them is me. JK
Makes two of us, of course. Of course two people can be right with opposite opinions – opinions only really matter to yourself. The other guy’s always stinks.
I freely admit that cars are often highly subjective. There really are no objectively bad cars anymore. Even the terrible ones of today are actually pretty amazing by historical standards.
I’m not sure I seem to remember Dodge or Ford having a AWD or FWD with 9.5 or 12 inch clearance. I think it was late 90s but couldn’t find it on Google, which means it was not on the first page of results in my search
Anything is cooler than a square ⬜ ⬛ especially a white or black square
It was an Enclave that rear ended my Miata. It losses just because of that. (Yes, still bitter.)
In Texas, it means it smells like brisket that has been in the smoker for at least 3 hrs.
That might actually make me buy the thing. I LOVE me some Texas BBQ. Hard 8 near the DFW airport is my happy place… Now I am drooling like Pavlov’s dogs…
If your travels to Massachusetts in your Discovery take you anywhere near Foxborough you need to stop at Blondie’s BBQ on Rt 1 Southbound in South Walpole. The closest to Texas BBQ I have found in the northeast. While not Salt Lick, it does trend that way.
Hell, Salt Lick hasn’t even made Texas Monthly’s top 50 BBQ joints for quite awhile. If you make it back to Austin, set aside a morning to wait in line for Franklin’s, Interstellar, or LeRoy and Lewis.
Thanks for the tip! I do get down that way occasionally.
Texas BBQ is great but Santa Maria Tri-tip is the best BBQ IN THE WORLD
Looks delicious. I will check it out next time I am out that way if I can find some.
It is the sheer variety of Texas BBQ that I love. Ribs, pork chops, brisket of course, usually by the pound so you can get a bit of everything. I actually rarely get steak at BBQ places.
Though some of the best BBQ I have ever had, and definitely the best for the price, because it was dirt cheap, was at a little Mom ‘n Pop restaurant in Wilmington, NC last year. For $24 I got their “sampler platter” and it was about 2X as much as I could possibly eat. And they had that fine Southern specialty – the *Deep Fried Pork Chop*. You can feel your arteries harden with every bite. Yummy!!
This is why we need emojis, I’m seeing a slobbering Homer Simpson aargh brisket
I like the Mazda more, but I’m going with the Buick. The cargo space and 3rd row room are better in the Enclave, and since we’re choosing between boring largish crossovers anyway, practicality should rule the day.
Nothing boring with the Mazda
Wow 3 strikes and you are out of here. While not a good performance like in bowling it is a Turkey and like 3 strikes in baseball.
We made this decision in real life back in 2017. My wife was in the market for an SUV and the Enclave and CX-9 were at the top of the list. Not sure what my wife saw in the Buick, but she ended up buying the Mazda and still has it. Overall it’s been great although I’m disappointed in the quality of the paint. It’s got just under 100K miles and my wife has been looking to downsize to a smaller vehicle but at this point I think it’s smarter to keep a paid-off car.
A paid-off car is an underrated liberty for us regular folks. No fear of the repo man, no comp/collision insurance mandates, no worry about an underwater loan if it gets totalled, no outstanding credit burden, sell it any time you like.
In our case, we have horses and occasional nights out instead of car payments.
Yep, especially since my wife is now 100% WFH so her car just sits in the driveway most of the time (which is how the paint got roached). Making a monthly payment on something you’re hardly using doesn’t seem prudent.
In my case I have 8 cars in my fleet sucking up my time and money.
I have a CX-9 and I like almost everything about the car except the goddamn paint.
Especially since ours is the fancy multi layer grey on the Signature.
Mazda is always the answer.
Mazdas Are Zuch Decent Automobiles.
My wife had a 2021 CX9 and her mom has a 2015 Enclave. With less miles that Enclave feels like it has had lived 15 lives. It is not a great appliance
The Mazda is the better choice. The rust shouldn’t be too bad since it’s in Texas, but it is a Mazda LOL
The I4 is better than a shitty transverse V6, even if the turbo is a bit scary and also requires premium 🙁
Avoid a transverse V6 if possible
The Mazda does not require premium, but it is recommended.
It’s a turbo. It requires premium 🙁
I know they say it’s only “recommended” and that you don’t “have to” use it, but that’s just for CAFE shit. For long-term use, you really do need premium.
Oh now wait, never mind. It’s a Mazda. The car will rust before you have any problems with it LOL
My wife’s CX-9 has been running perfectly fine on CA 87 octane for nearly 100K miles now, including some towing miles.
Per all sorts of Mazda documentation, the only thing higher octane (93, which isn’t available here in CA anyway) does is provide more horsepower – 250HP vs 227HP on 87. Hooray for knock sensors. Different octane does not affect MPGs.
Also rust ain’t a thing here.
What is the warranty? I would bet after the warranty runs out a big old Batman Kaboom
5/60 warranty and my wife’s has 9 years and 97K on it with regular maintenance and it hasn’t consumed or leaked any oil *shrug*
The Enclave rental in aneheim was pretty slick, it was basically a minivan without the minivan stigma. I was actually surprised they made it still once I looked it up. But I thought it was FWD only, maybe that is the newer ones. At any rate, I would probably look past both of these as I do not want to be replacing Turbos or timing chains, but it I had to chose today, the NA 3.6 would probably get my vote. though only marginally, the Mazda is by far the more attractive lump of a family truckster.
What is this? I thought this was a car enthusiast website. No.
My wife drives that generation of CX-9 and I generally trust it. I don’t know nearly as much about the Enclave except that the Traverse we test drove had surprisingly bad ergonomics; on that point alone I have to go for the Mazda, just like we did in real life.
But I have to say, the 2.5t isn’t very refined, and it has so much torque that even with AWD it has lots of torque steer and drama when you floor it at low speed. With FWD on both these cars, you could definitely make a case for the V6’s less abrupt power delivery along with its dramatically better smoothness and refinement.
Meh. Buick, I guess?
No one is buying a crossover because they want something fun. You buy them because you need to get to work or you need to bring the kids to school. Often both. The Buick is at least honest about what it is. The Mazda is doing its best to convince you it is fun because it is sold at the same dealership as a Miata. Spoiler alert: The Mazda is just as boring as the Buick.
After reading through the comments, I’m relieved to see very few of the comments imply the Mazda will be fun to drive – it is great to see people here aren’t falling for Mazda’s propaganda.
The dash layout in that Buick reminds me of the dash in my 300m if I squint a bit. Given the diaspora of Chrysler designers in the Daimler era, I can’t help but wonder if some of the same folks worked on it?
That said, I’m going with the Mazda today. Both of these are high-mileage examples of a vehicle class in which I have no interest, so I might as well spend my imaginary ‘Net bucks on the more interesting uninteresting unit.
Woof. My mother in law has a slightly older Enclave.
I’ll take the risk of the unknown on the Mazda all day.
That’s so you, but it ain’t me, or is it? Honestly if you parked these side by side I’d forget which one was mine.
The Buick would be a no-brainer for me today. Less miles, cheaper parts if repairs are needed, and a lower buy-in cost.
This would replace a 2003 GMC Envoy we currently own.
I’d rather saved my internet money for a day and used it on some dilapidated hoopty firebird then either of these hah.
Everyone I’ve known with this era of Enclave/Traverse has had numerous issues with them. Assuming I don’t need the 3rd row daily, I’m taking the Mazda which is going to be both nicer to drive, a nicer interior (assuming it’s not too beat up), and even with that mileage, probably more reliable. It also doesn’t look like a sad lump of ass. Unlike the Buick.
So many junkyards making reels and TikToks about the absolute atrociousness and throwaway nature of these SUVs…
…makes the vote for the Mazda a no-brainer, even though the 2.5T doesn’t make that kind of hp/tq unless you feed it premium.
I also have had several co-workers who have had these vehicles, and can confirm: absolute junkyard fodder. All of them.
It’s really the worst sort of vehicle for a car manufacturer to fuck up too. Some people can live with their high strung sport compacts being an ass-pain. But your transmission blowing up on a family vacation or some shit like that is how you get a once loyal customer to spend the rest of their life spewing vitriol about your brand. This is a segment where reliability is 95% of the job. Which is why Toyota can’t keep Highlanders on the lot.
I would venture to say that I love my GMC Acadia (the Buick’s cousin). Like any car, it has had its problems (thermostat puking its guts out being the most egregious) and it’s not perfect (there’s a teeny, tiny little oil leak), but other than that, it’s been a great family truckster. I’m aware of the timing chain issue and have reduced the oil change interval distance (and ignoring the oil life percentage bullcrap) to compensate and have performed some preventative maintenance on the transmission when I bought it. The sheer size of the thing with the captain’s chairs make it a perfect fit for me, my wife, and three kids.
Those Enclave/Traverse are bad. Either the transmission or engine will blow up eventually, add the electrical weird stuff from GM from that era. Thats why they vanished from the streets, its more common to see a Chevy Trailblazer/GMC Envoy (that is older) running around that one of these.
Mazda is smaller inside but a more reliable powertrain in general.