Holden Acadia SUV

We are potentially looking at getting a new large SUV and so far, the Holden Acadia seems to be the one that impresses the most and it ticks all the boxes for us. Has anyone driven one, or owns one? Would like to hear of the ownership experience, namely its reliability etc.

Comments

  • +8 votes

    Do you like depreciation?

  •  

    namely its reliability etc.

    The Acadia can’t be any worse than this one. The savings may be used for a holiday.

    https://youtu.be/aKmERvIFyUs

    •  

      I'd happily buy an LDV over an Arcadia. Holden probably wont be around in a years time, so taking a punt on an Arcadia may mean that the warranty will only last as long as Holden is around.

  • +7 votes

    Have you also looked and driven the Mazda’s CX-9, Kia’s Sorento & Toyota Kluger. Just stay away from Holden. And not particular order of those other alternatives.

  • +3 votes

    I can't see Holden being around for much longer. Now that the Commodore and Astra have been dropped it only leaves them with the Trax, Equinox, Acadia and Trailblazer SUVs and the Colorado ute, none of which are flying out the door.

    Heaps of dealerships have already closed or been rebranded to sell other brands. The end is near.

    There's much better cars available for less money as mentioned by others above. The base model Acadia is very expensive & doesn't even come with front parking sensors!

  •  

    Nothing wrong with them.People who own them are quite happy with them.Go onto “Whirlpool forums”,sub forum:Holden.there is a thread on the Acadia.

  •  

    Excellent vehicle…..I test drove the CX9, Kluger & Santa Fe…..Acadia was a clear winner for me.

  •  

    Don't buy a Holden. Especially don't buy a new Holden. It's just more GM junk. You're throwing away 20% of whatever you pay for it the second you drive it away. If you have to have an Acadia (you don't), buy one that is a few months old (or ideally, 1-2 yrs old) to avoid the majority of the total depreciation loss.

    Realistically, you should be looking at non-diesel Mazda CX8/9, Toyota Kluger (awful on fuel but extremely solid), Hyundai Santa Fe and Kia Sorrento. These are all going to be far more reliable and solidly-built cars. If you are balking at the price, go 1-2 yrs old.

    My opinion is always that if you are shopping in Ford/Holden/other entry-level shitheap pricerange, you can't afford a new x, y, or z and you should be shopping for a used/demo one in the next pricerange up. Better resale, you will pay less of the depreciation (let some other sucker cop that), and end up with a better car.

    • +1 vote

      20% is being generous.

      Absolutely spot on in regards to buying a good car that's a demo/used than a shitbox that's new.

  •  

    The CX9 and Santa Fe have been the most popular with our clients, with the Kia sorrento in the mix also.
    Holden ongoing support is also questionable in australia in the long term (may or may not be an issue for you depending on how long you plan to keep the car for)

  •  

    My parents leased one for 6 months and couldn't be happier to return it, it's severely under powered and the amount of things that's optional extras that are included in other cars is astounding.

    •  

      Given the Acadia has the highest Power-to-weight ratio compared to its competitors, ie. CX9, Kluger, Sorento, Sante Fe……I find their opinion, interesting……

      •  

        Haha, Maybe its cause their previous car was the Q5.

        •  

          I think you'll find the Acadia also has the Q5 covered in the Power to weight stakes.

          • +2 votes

            @Actionman77: It has the Acadia covered in not being a shitbox though.

            • -2 votes

              @brendanm: Built buy a car company that was fined €800 million for deceiving its customers…..I wouldn't be so sure!

                •  

                  @brendanm: Yeah, hilarious.

                  •  

                    @Actionman77: Yeah, only nearly 200 deaths, but Audi cheating emissions is much worse hey. Q5 - no deaths, not a shitbox. Acadia - company that kills people and is a shitbox. Hard choice.

                    •  

                      @brendanm: Not sure what's so funny about the deaths of so many innocent people…..I'll leave it with you.

                      •  

                        @Actionman77: The funny part is that you pointed out Audi as being evil, yet there GM is (they are Holden you know), literally killing people, and you're ok with that.

                        •  

                          @brendanm: I didn't link to an article relating to the deaths of nearly 200 people and then 'lol'.
                          And the estimated 5000 deaths per year in Europe, as a direct result of Dieselgate, is no small beer. Talk about an inconvenient truth.

                          •  

                            @Actionman77: The lol was at you. Another lol at "5000 deaths" due to cheating emissions. That 0.01% or so of total world emissions must be really potent.

                            •  

                              @brendanm: I'll stick with peer reviewed science literature, you keep running with the corporate spin doctors.

                              • +1 vote

                                @Actionman77: GM shitbox deaths are a direct result of them being shitboxes.

                                The “deaths from dieselgate” is just guesswork or an approximation of what could possibly have happened. It would be impossible to tie any particular death to any particular vehicle in that case.

                                I think I’ll take hard facts over guesswork and assumptions.

                                (PS: This is not condoning VW for what they did, it was a shitty thing to do.)

                              •  

                                @Actionman77: I actually just use my brain. Globally, personal vehicle emissions are low. We then have to narrow it down to only be, which makes it lower again, then VW diesel, lower again. Then VW diesel between 2009-2014, lower again, then the percentage difference between reported and actual emissions, which brings us down to an absolutely tiny amount.

                                If you honestly think it has/will cause 5000 deaths, I have a bridge to sell you with great harbour views. Also, every cargo ship would be killing about 10,000 people.

                                •  

                                  @brendanm:

                                  Globally, personal vehicle emissions are low

                                  No they aren’t, and a lot of personal vehicle travel is unnecessary unlike transport for goods.

                                  •  

                                    @Euphemistic:

                                    Globally, about 15 percent of manmade carbon dioxide comes from cars, trucks, airplanes, ships and other vehicles.

                                    Aircraft not only emit 12 percent of CO2 emissions from U.S. transportation sources — they also emit nitrogen oxides other than nitrous oxide, causing warming when emitted at high elevation. And ships, besides releasing almost 3 percent of the world’s CO2 (about as much as all of Canada emits), are also a main source of nitrous oxide and black carbon (soot).

                                    Source: https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_ins...

                                    Basic maths there shows how much personal transport contributes. Perhaps 2%? Then follow my maths above allowing for the number of "dieselgate" vehicles, and an approximate difference in reported and actual emissions, and the result would be something ridiculous like 0.0001% increase.

                                    Transporting infinite cheap Chinese trinkets to sell for $1 and then throw out a day later isn't necessary.

    •  

      I like comments such as ‘severely underpowered’. Has no real meaning. What is it compared to? Were you expecting the same performance out of a large SUV as you’d get from a hatchback or performance sedan? Given it has he same engine as a commodore I’d expect it to be slower, but compare apples with apples.

      •  

        IMO anything that takes more than 7 secs 0-100 is underpowered unless it's a heavy vehicle or dedicated off-road 4WD. A terrible gearbox or engine performance curve could easily make any car both feel and be worse than another, despite a better headline power to weight

        • +3 votes

          I don't accept any daily driver that won't do a sub 5 second 0-100 or sub 12 second quarter.

        •  

          Sub 7 is hardly necessary for anything that isn’t racing. Completely unnecessary in urban traffic. It’s jyst contributing to excess emissions. My vehicle at over 11s 0-100 keeps up just fine.

          •  

            @Euphemistic: I think I've been at the lights next to brendanm on occasion……

          • -1 vote

            @Euphemistic: Getting through more lights before they turn red is saving overall emissions at the expense of slightly greater emissions per start and also saves time regardless. I wouldn't be hugely confident that the same amount of mechanical work delivered quicker results in greater emissions anyway. Depending on when and where you drive (and how badly they've programmed the traffic light sequences in particular) it can actually be quite helpful.

            Keep that in mind next time you're 200m back when the light turns yellow - a bit more acceleration when it makes sense, and you might be surprised by how good the run can be