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 Crossover SUV Comparison
7127 messages, Last post on Nov 28, 2009 at 8:31 PM
You are in the SUVs Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
Replying to: vad1819 (Jan 22, 2008 7:19 am) (nxs138) That would narrow your choice to the Enclave, Veracruz, and CX-9 I was thinking the same thing, but I want to give the others a fair shake as well. (thegraduate) It's a shame the wife doesn't want a van again I agree. I was kind of leaning towards a Honda Odyssey myself, but she has firmly put her foot down on that. She won’t even go look at one. (Vad1819) For situation will best choice is Suburban…..The third row in CUV designed for kids only True enough, especially if you want to err on the side of having too much room rather than too little. We had a Suburban before and liked it, but it’s not in the running this time around. A bit too costly to buy and operate. (chuckhoy) That depends on the size of the adults. I am the tallest in my family at 5'9" so the 3rd row is fine for us. I would seriously look at the TX if you only want to seat 6 Yes, I did not mention that my three daughters are all under 5’5”. Although one’s husband is 6’5, and one’s boyfriend is 6’. So depending on who we are taking with us, there are usually a few “smaller” sized people. My son and I are both 6’. And I’m afraid that the Taurus X looks too much like a wagon for my wife (sigh!). (bobw3) Try the CX-9 & Enclave first and see which one you like driving the most. That will really tell if either too hard or too soft...a real test with some adults in the 3rd row I’m hesitant to try these first, as my wife might get hung up on the styling, and not want to look at some of the others. I was thinking of trying out the Toyota Highlander first, as it shares some components (including engine), with the RX350. Plus a friend works at the local Toyota dealership, and he’s been after me to give Toyota a try. I’ve never owned a Toyota, but if it’s the right vehicle for my wife and family, I would happily buy one. I’ve got an appointment to check it out tomorrow. I’ll let you know how it goes.
|
|
|
Replying to: hoser0eh (Jan 22, 2008 2:18 pm) The new Highlander is a nice vehicle. Nice and peppy ride. Not much room behind the third row, and I wish that the third row was split (you have to fold the whole thing down). Let me know if you think that the steering if over-assisted. I didn't feel connected to the road, but at least I could turn the thing with one finger! |
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Jan 21, 2008 1:34 am) Mitsu has done a good job putting toppings on the sundae, though. Perhaps to draw attention away from the platform's roots (Dodge Caliber) and the engine's roots (shared with Dodge and Hyundai). I guess I wish the ice cream used under all those toppings were better. Like I mentioned earlier, though, all that cost cutting is what allowed them to invest in the stereo and some of the neat features you listed. That makes me wonder, though, did Mitsubishi use MyGig, and just change the name? They seem to share a lot with Chrysler.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Jan 22, 2008 7:21 pm) After 11,000 miles in my 2007 Outlander I can say that the chassis is very good. Solid feeling with very little flex... and no creaks or rattles. The suspension is a little bit on the firm side which gives it the best handling in the class. Initially I was worried it was going to be too stiff but after driving it for a while I think it's very good. The MIVEC V6 is a good engine. It's the first SULEV 3 liter V6 in a crossover SUV so it runs clean and gets good real world mileage, for me it's 20 mpg around town and 25 mpg on the freeway. It has good acceleration with the 6 speed automatic, around town it has a willing/lively feel and gets going easily without being thrashy like the CRV. The NAV/stereo/DVD/satellite are great on the Outlander. The touch screen is simple to use and looks clean, much nicer than the cluttered look of some cars that use voice activation and lots of knobs. The Rockford Fosgate 650W stereo is one of my favorite features. The 3rd row seat is perfect for kids when you need some extra room. They actually fight to be able to sit in the back row. And it stores completely out of the way most of the time. Beats driving a big 12 mpg SUV or a minvan for me. The Outlander is definitely worth a look, you can get one loaded for under $30K. |
|
|
Replying to: hoser0eh (Jan 22, 2008 2:18 pm) Van-like room for up to 6 adults and luggage If you still want that then the Highlander is out.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Jan 22, 2008 7:21 pm) Also, consider that the Outlander has more interior space and is larger than the XT. The Caliber is actually based on the Outlander platform, and a DCX finalized derivative thereof to boot. When DCX sold it's stake in Mitsubishi in 2004 (18 months before the Outlander was launched), both companies finalized the platform on their own. So there are differences between the two. http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060808/FREE/60807008/1041/P- - HOTOS The 3.0l V6 is a pure Mitsubishi design and not related to the 4B series of engines co-developed by DCX/Hyundai/Mitsubishi. Incidentally, the main thing shared in the above venture is the basic block. The head and other elements are modified by each manufacturer for their own needs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_4B1_engine |
|
|
Replying to: psychogun (Jan 23, 2008 11:18 am) In the thread where this discussion came from, we were talking about the 4B12 2.4l engine, which shares a block with Hyundai and Dodge. That was in the context of the Car & Driver comparison of small SUVs from this month's issue. The Forester offers a manual transmissions and AFAIK Mitsubishi doesn't. The list of available manuals keeps getting shorter, in fact Subaru is dropping the manual from the turbos for 2009.  Back to the Outlander, let me pose the question to the whole group - does it matter to you that the platform is shared with Chrysler? The engine with Chrysler/Hyundai? Chelentano was boasting about Mitsubishi's past success in Dakar Rallying, but I didn't think it was very relevant in this case, so I'll ask, what do you folks think? Positive influence, negative, or none at all? We used to own a Lancer and I lusted after a Galant VR-4 back in the day, but I felt like Mitsu becamse the Japanese Chrysler there for a while and sort of lost their identity a bit, with the EVO being the exception. My personal answers: Yes, the GS platform had to be built to meet certain cost targets, and here I think the Dodge Caliber drags it down a bit in my eyes. Same for the 2.4l engine, and the Mitsu even makes less power than the same block in a Caliber. The V6 is not shared, so no qualms there, but the output could still be better. Finally, my opinion is that the Dakar rally helps the Outlander about as much as NASCAR racing helps the Ford Fusion. No, that's not a typo, because Mitsu races heavily modified trucks in Dakar, and the Outlander is merely a smaller sibling to those trucks, just as a Focus is to the Fusion. I'll open the floor for other opinions...
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Jan 23, 2008 12:55 pm) I've had that discussion with him before. Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Jan 23, 2008 12:55 pm) I have the V6 and wouldn't consider any of the current 4 cylinder engines for use in a medium sized CUV. For example, the Honda 2.4L engine is wonderful in the Accord but horrible in the heavier CR-V. And I'm not a fan of using forced induction to boost the output of a 4 cylinder engine, so the CX7 and RDX didn't make the cut. I've always given a slight advantage to manufacturers that are capable of dominating a racing class. It's not necessarily about how close to stock the vehicles are, because almost no race cars are close to stock, but more about the ability of the manufacturer to focus on the goal and put together a team that can produce outstanding results. In the end the valuable lessons that the engineers learn ofter make their way into a superior product.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: biscuit_xls (Jan 23, 2008 5:32 pm) Apparently you are in a major minority. The Honda CR-V outsells all other options here. It is also basically equivalent to the 3.0L V6 Escape (while the Honda gets much better MPG), a vehicle which led the pack until the 4-cylinder CR-V took over as leader. Is the CR-V a hot-rod? Nope, nor is the Escape, Outlander, Rogue, etc. In this class of vehicles (small wagons/CUVs) I don't see the need for using any more gas than necessary. For the record, the EPA lists economy for these two as: CR-V AWD - 20/26 Outlander V6 AWD - 17/24 If having a 0-60 time of 1 second quicker is worth getting less economy, go for it. It doesn't mean people who choose otherwise are wrong for it, though. You aren't wrong for choosing a V6, either.
|
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 GMC Acadia
2010 Mitsubishi Outlander
2010 Subaru Forester
2009 Hyundai Santa Fe
2009 Ford Taurus X
2011 Toyota RAV4
2010 Nissan Rogue
2010 Honda Accord Crosstour
2010 Dodge Journey
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
