Holden Acadia ‘don't buy’ warning
Holden Acadia is a hastily rebadged GMC Acadia - a seven-seat SUV notionally there to compete with Kluger and CX-9. My recommendation? Don’t bother
Here’s why Acadia won’t work here. It’s because the bullshit Acadia soundbites are totally mis-representative of the vehicle. Consumers aren’t that dumb - not any more.
Here’s one such Acadia soundbite from the bullshit Bible of public prick-tease on Holden’s website:
“Built to rule the road. Premium powertrain and great driveability will fill you with confidence…”
I’d suggest it’ll fill you with something, if you position yourself appropriately.
Acadia is a seven-seat SUV that’s about six inches shorter than a Mazda CX-9. So it’s a little larger than a Kia Sorento. Weighs about two tonnes. Petrol only - so a comparison with CX-9 is relevant.
Acadia is as ugly as a hatful of Scott Morrisons and it’s channeling the Ford Territory when I look at it sideways, disturbingly enough.
It’s gunna hit Shitsville shores with the 3.6-litre V6 that’s been around in one form or another since 2004. That’s before GM went tits-up in the GFC.
230 kilowatts - but you have to rev it to a staggering 6600 revs to make that power.
382 Newton-metres, at a ridiculous 5200rpm. So let’s just detain ourselves with the absurdity of these outdated boat anchor V6s. Versus the Holden bullshit claim of (quote) “premium powertrain”.
When one drives one’s premium seven-seat SUV with the ageing grandparents, the three kids, mum and dad to wherever, one generally does not want to push the engine north of 5000 rpm just to make shit happen.
I’m just going to dumb this right down. Torque times revs equals power - it’s actually Newton-metres times rpm divided by 9549 if you want to do it with an abacus.
Read more at Engineering ToolBox >>
Hold that thought. The Mazda CX-9 has a 2.5-litre turbocharged four-cylinder engine. CX-9 makes 10 per cent more peak torque, but because Mazda’s engineers have not been dead from the neck up since the GFC, CX-9 makes that higher torque figure at just 2000 rpm - versus the GM shitheap V6 at 5000 rpm.
You don’t have to be Carlo Rubbia or Simon van der Meer to understand that the CX-9 is going to feel effortless and relaxed at medium revs, where the Acadia will just feel gutless unless you rev the shit out of it.
Acadia is thirsty. The Mazda: 8.8 litres per hundred, combined cycle. The shitheap: 11.8 - that’s a conversion from GMC’s website today - over one third more fuel used by the Acadia for the same driving.
Don’t waste my time, therefore, with this bullshit hyperbole about the Acadia’s allegedly premium powertrain.
I don’t know about you, but I live in a world where there are facts, and they really matter. There’s no such thing as alternative facts. You can’t spin bullshit into facts, no matter how marvellous you are as an orator.
Acadia is a thirsty shitbox with an outdated engine that needs to be flogged if you want performance. The CX-9 is better for all normal driving - especially in the context of the kind of driving seven-seat SUV owners do.
Not too many of them are really that hung up on the seven-seat SUV lap record for the Nurburgring. They’re just not.
I don’t see how mutton dressed as lamb in the form of Acadia, or even a $90,000 hastily converted Camaro can resurrect the shot duck we call Holden.