While the video's comparison of the three SUVs' performance in a "snow battle" is entertaining, it doesn't really add anything to the overall evaluation. Furthermore, a race on a level runway isn't very important. It's like those huge booming car ads that try to show people what their vehicle can do in the middle of a jungle or desert. Nice theatre, but impractical for most consumers.
While a swerving test has its uses, I'd be more interested in seeing how these cars handled climbing and descending slopes, navigating snowy intersections, stopping and going in the city, driving through heavy snow, freeing an SUV stuck in the snow, and other similar situations.
Their tests weren't clean, but it's wonderful to cheer for our beautiful CX-90 that we drive. Every one of the three SUVs had a distinct set of tires, as spirod noted (and brought up briefly in the video). Before the tests, the guy said that the tires on the CX-90 were "meatier" than those on the Palisade; I also noticed that he either ignored or downplayed the comments made concerning the tire difference, haha.
According to certain customer reports, the Michelin CX90 tires perform better in the Winter/Snow category (which includes light snow, heavy snow, and ice traction), compared to the other set of Michelin tires. I don't understand. Again, a runway relay? It would have been more intriguing if the Palisade had the tires of the CX90 and still managed to perform significantly worse. Michelin Pilot tires on the Palisade also get a much lower treadwear rating. Vehicles appear to be registered rather than lent by dealers; I have no idea how many miles have previously been put on these tires, and the Palisade's tires have worse Winter ratings.