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
7147 messages, Last post on Dec 05, 2009 at 5:13 PM
You are in the SUVs Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
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.
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Jan 23, 2008 7:17 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: bobw3 (Jan 23, 2008 6:35 am) Very smooth and powerful. Very quiet. Comfortable. Nice driving position. Good controls all around (except perhaps the cruise control stalk is hidden behind the steering wheel). Good visibility. (nxs138) 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! (bobw3) Your original post said, “Van-like room for up to 6 adults and luggage “ If you still want that then the Highlander is out. You are both correct. I agree, the steering was perhaps a bit isolated, probably due to it being electric and not hydraulic. It wasn’t horrible though. And yes, the third seat is an issue. Access to the third seat is poor, even for children. And I would guess that it is only comfortable for small adults or children. It certainly was not comfortable for my wife or myself. If you needed to use the third seat all the time, then this is not the vehicle for you. But, as we only need the third seat occasionally, we have not ruled the Highlander out just yet. Also, storage behind the third seat is minimal. If we took this vehicle on a road trip with 6 people inside, two of the people would need to be small, and we would need to put a luggage carrier on top. A road trip for 4 or 5 would probably be okay. The second row seats are great, except for the removable centre section, which is also just suitable for “smaller people”. The fact that the third seat is one piece is a major design flaw. You should be able to put one person in half the third seat, and fold the other half down to increase your storage space. That’s quite an oversight for Toyota. Styling is not very impressive either (as I suspected) according to my wife. But having said all that, she did not rule the Highlander out completely at this point. I think she really enjoyed driving it. I imagine that she feels that the vehicle would be great for her everyday use, and perhaps adequate for the occasional long trip with the kids. On the other hand, I’m pretty sure that this vehicle will slide down the list, as we test drive it’s roomier (hopefully) competitors. I’m not sure which one we’ll test drive next, but it should be later this week. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: vad1819 (Jan 23, 2008 7:41 pm) The only difference? How about more power and more fuel used. And, V6 doesn't always gurantee smoother. Having heard some of the old GM pushrod V6 engines (3100, 3400, 3800), I can tell ya there are some 4-bangers out there that are smoother. That's not typically the case though; usually a V6 is smoother than a 4.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Jan 23, 2008 7:17 pm) I'm sure I'm in the minority because the CR-V is an established vehicle in the class, pretty much guaranteed to be among the top sellers. But that doesn't automatically make it a better vehicle. Drive the I4 CR-V and V6 Outlander back-to-back and you'll see the Outlander is in a completely different category. It doesn't downshift frequently, it doesn't have to rev to redline when getting on the freeway, it doesn't bog down with 4 passengers, it can tow twice as much, and it is so much smoother and quieter. I'll give up a few mpg for all of the benefits of the V6. I really wanted to like the CR-V because I own a 2003 I4 Accord EX-L that has been a great vehicle. Unfortunately the CR-V just wasn't fun to drive and lacked a lot of important features for me (3rd row, 6 speed, HID headlights, V6, SULEV rating, 18" alloy etc).
|
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 GMC Acadia
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
