Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
SUVs Nissan Murano Nissan Murano vs Toyota Highlander vs Subaru B9 Tribeca vs Honda Pilot
798 messages, Last post on Dec 01, 2009 at 9:52 AM
You are in the Nissan Murano Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
|
|---|---|
|
Speaking of real-world owner ratings the results appear to be very consistent all across the three major consumer ratings sites. Hundreds of owners rated their cars. Sometimes you see some junkie rating there, but overall it’s much more objective vs. some currupted magazine "comparo". It might appear, that differences are small but they do reflect a trend well: Edmunds.com 2007 Honda Pilot 8.6 2007 Subaru B9 Tribeca 8.9 2007 Nissan Murano 9.2 2007 Mitsu Outlander 9.2 MSN Autos 2007 Honda Pilot 8.9 2007 Subaru B9 Tribeca 9.2 2007 Nissan Murano 9.4 2007 Mitsu Outlander 9.5 Yahoo Autos 2007 Honda Pilot 3.5 2007 Subaru B9 Tribeca 3.5 2007 Nissan Murano 4.5 2007 Mitsu Outlander 4.5 For the real people the Murano and the Outlander appear to be favorites in this group. both could use improvements, but overall they offer the best balance of styling, comfort, reliability, technology, value and driving fun. Subarus, on my opinion are little behind in styling and technology, but they are very reliable cars and standard AWD is a great bonus, if fuel economy is not an issue.
|
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Jan 18, 2008 12:15 am) You may be interested in truedelta.com, one fellow's indepedent effort to rate vehicle reliability/quality with no bias. I think he does a heck of a job. Take a look and enter your vehicle's info, if you wish... they're always looking to add more owners from smaller marketshare brands like Mitsubishi & Subaru, and the more real-world results there are, the more accurate the information.
|
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Jan 18, 2008 12:15 am) I think Subaru does a good job limiting any reduction of fuel economy. Forester, for example, is already more fuel-efficient than nearly all similar AWD vehicles (the new RAV is the exception I can think of), and it's the oldest Subie in the stable. However, it has very minimal MPG loss compared to similar 2WD vehicles as well: PT Cruiser 19/26; HHR 23/30; 2WD CRV 23/30; new Scion Xb 22/28; Rondo 21/29; Forester 23/28. Forester's city MPG is tied for the best, and hwy MPG is only 2 MPG lower than the leaders. Among those competitors, Forester offers the most horsepower, the most torque, and full-time AWD - and the tradeoff vs. its most efficient competitors is only 2 MPG highway. I'd gladly give up 2MPG for more HP, torque & AWD. Subaru's close to bringing to market direct injection gasoline engines, CVTs and the diesel. I think they are taking the right steps to increase their fuel economy even further. Plus, they're right with Mitsubishi, introducing a small electric vehicle for sale to the Japanese public in the next 2 years.
|
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Jan 18, 2008 12:15 am)  Personally, I value Editor's ratings over user ratings, because they're the experts. But let's look anyway. Edmunds users rates the Subaru Forester a 9.2, so in the compact SUV class it's a draw. An Outlander is smaller than the Pilot. Their mid-size entry is the Endeavor. MSN rates Forester 9.4, Yahoo 4.5, so basically no significant difference from the Outlander. Plus, we all know owners don't take these compact SUVs off road, so their ratings do not reflect the abilities of the AWD system in that context. From the Dakar/rally angle, though, it was a little disappointing to read about the off road results. Why didn't it perform better? My guess is it's because they used a Dodge Caliber platform to begin with. The good thing about the Outlander, actually, is that by cutting costs with all the parts and platform sharing with Dodge and Hyundai, they were able to add a lot of content. The "corrupt" Car & Driver review reflects that with a good score for content. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: jeffmc (Jan 18, 2008 12:46 am) Best product does not always have biggest market share (Microsoft/Apple, betamax/VHS, etc.) Yes, I am a trudelta member, good site btw. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Jan 18, 2008 8:57 am) Car magazines make living from car advertising. Don’t they? Consumer Reports is the only magazine I know that at least claims that they are not paid by manufacturers. CR car reviews are not always on a high level, but they provide the best reliability info, since they collect it from real owners. All other magazines have the obvious conflict of interest: on one hand they have to be objective to cars they review, on the other hand they have to please donors who manufacture these cars, otherwise they not gonna get advertising dollars from a manufacturer - very tough position to be in. Car magazines are essentially additional marketing and sales tools for manufacturers and car “experts” are essentially salesmen. I am more interested in ratings by real-world owners. Real-world owners don't sell cars, instead they buy them paying hard earned dollars, so I have more trust to a 100 of real people who bought a car and drive it for a few months, rather then to one magazine “expert”/salesmen, who drives for 60 min. brand new car from dealership. >> Edmunds users rates the Subaru Forester a 9.2, so in the compact SUV class it's a draw. An Outlander is smaller than the Pilot. MSN rates Forester 9.4, Yahoo 4.5, so basically no significant difference from the Outlander. I did not want to bring another car to this thread, but yes, Outlander is a smaller car, and yes, Forester has great owner ratings, so to me it means it’s a great vehicle, probably best in a class though it’s not really a crossover – it’s a station wagon. . >> Plus, we all know owners don't take these compact SUVs off road, so their ratings do not reflect the abilities of the AWD system in that context. Consumer ratings reflect overall owner satisfaction with a car, including mileage, styling, reliability, etc. Owners usually don’t mention the AWD system, though I imagine if the vehicle would behave badly on slippery road, they would complain and it would affect the ratings. >> From the Dakar/rally angle, though, it was a little disappointing to read about the off road results. Why didn't it perform better? My guess is it's because they used a Dodge Caliber platform to begin with. Like I’ve said, the comparo by magazine “experts” does not mean much to me: they push up whoever buys more ads. . >> The good thing about the Outlander, actually, is that by cutting costs with all the parts and platform sharing with Dodge and Hyundai, they were able to add a lot of content. The "corrupt" Car & Driver review reflects that with a good score for content. Mitsubishi might be also buying some ads, so the “expert” being in very difficult position have to play more sophisticated game, knowing that after all a consumer is looking at the bottom line: who lost in the comparo and who won. Details on who had “good content” matter less at the end. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Jan 18, 2008 8:57 am) I am not sure what you mean here, since the Outlander is sharing its platform design with Lancer (so does the Caliber), but the Outlander sold in North America is build entirely in Japan. I believe it is build with all Japanese parts and labor, which is a main reason it has highest CR reliability and owner satisfaction ratings. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: jeffmc (Jan 18, 2008 1:00 am) Yes, but Subaru’s relatively decent fuel economy is achieved at cost of using variable torque for the rear axle, adjusted for road condition. To stay competitive they pretty much follow what other manufacturers are doing. . >>Forester, for example, is already more fuel-efficient than nearly all similar AWD vehicles 2WD cars still have better mileage, so dual mode 2WD/4WD cars have advantage, since consumer has two choices.
|
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Jan 18, 2008 11:41 pm) All of my examples were 2WD vehicles competing w/AWD Forester. Only 2 of the 5 got better mileage... the Honda and the Chevy... and their advantage was 2MPG more on the highway (they had no advantage in the city) gained at least in part from their less powerful engines. Bump those engines up to match the Forester's and I wonder if their slight advantage would vanish altogether. PT Cruiser 19/26; HHR 23/30; 2WD CRV 23/30; new Scion Xb 22/28; Rondo 21/29; Forester 23/28 I'm not saying there's no drivetrain loss with AWD, but just saying 2WD cars get better mileage is much too sweeping. "Yes, but Subaru’s relatively decent fuel economy is achieved at cost of using variable torque for the rear axle, adjusted for road condition." I don't understand how that's a bad thing. Subarus allow torque to vary between front & rear axles, allowing the most torque to reach the wheels with the most traction in any given instant, whether the driver observes slippery conditions beforehand or not. Different Subaru models have different normal bias... some are FWD-biased for better economy and some are RWD-biased for more sporting driving experience. |
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Nissan Murano Nissan Murano vs Toyota Highlander vs Subaru B9 Tribeca vs Honda Pilot
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Nissan Murano
2010 Toyota Highlander
2007 Subaru B9 Tribeca
2010 Honda Pilot
2009 Acura MDX
2011 Volkswagen Touareg
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
