You are here: Forums SUVs Crossover SUV Comparison

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

What is this discussion about? GMC Acadia, Hyundai Santa Fe, Ford Taurus X, Toyota RAV4, Nissan Rogue, Honda Accord Crosstour, Dodge Journey, Car Buying, Car Comparisons, SUV

#5318 of 7147 Re: Crossover Comparison continued [samf10] by humblecoder Jan 27, 2008 (2:05 pm)
Replying to: samf10 (Jan 27, 2008 1:25 pm) However when i look at the car that is the honest reaction i get. Felt compelled to say no offense b/c people can take their cars pretty personal. I do not think i am alone in thinking the ford X looks like a hearst.   After reading your post I went back and looked at some pictures of the TX, and now that you mention it, I do see some resemblance to a hearse! I never really thought about it before, until you brought it up.   Bear in mind that I will soon be the owner of a TX in a few weeks, and your observation certainly hasn't changed my opinion. On the contrary, it'll come in handy lugging around the mother-in-law!
#5320 of 7147 Re: TX and other CUV's [baggs32] by vad1819 Jan 27, 2008 (2:29 pm)
Replying to: baggs32 (Jan 27, 2008 12:08 pm) I don't argue about your opinion. It's good that you're liked. I just share my experience from auto show.     "Does anyone sit adults in the second row of these things for long trips the majority of the time they are driving it?"   Yes it does matter. When your kid will be hitting back of your seat. The TX no longer fuel saver with new engine in there. So, why not buy bigger more comfortable CUV.   About Flex: the interior looks same as TX. The second row moves same as TX, even seat same.The space behind third row looks same as TX. I have not measured with the tape. The very good CUV is Volvo. A lot space almost same as Acadia, rear smaller bottom part of the gate drops down, I liked it very much. ( I'm taking back what I said before about Volvo).   But if you're willing to spent 45 grand or more for family CUV the Mercedes R-class will be one of the best choices. The interior is superior compare to any CUV, at same time conservative using high quality materials, even interior door handles feels like you're sitting in the sedan. There're no reasons to compare R-class to Q7, R has much, much better interior and space. Q7 is more like oversize Toureg. Replies to this message: baggs32 (Jan 28, 2008 10:30 am) ateixeira (Jan 28, 2008 11:22 am)
#5321 of 7147 Re: Crossover Comparison continued [samf10] by freealfas Jan 27, 2008 (2:44 pm)
Replying to: samf10 (Jan 27, 2008 1:25 pm) I don't have a T-rerX, I don't care really, I just don't understand why people feel the need to take shots at it when there is absolutely no reason to.   BTW - it's "hearse", I alluded to "Hearst" in my reply as he was a man of great wealth and taste in fine art from all era's, so calling it a "Hearst" could have been construed, while a stretch, as complimentary. As I mentioned I found the irony in the your statement and was just trying to point that out.   as for funeral arrangements you'll need at least a lambda because everyone around here knows you'd never get a coffin in a FS/T-reX as been proven time and time again here in this forum it's just not big enough. bigger is better in that instance, but keep trying. it more looks the part anyway...LOL
#5322 of 7147 Re: Crossover Comparison continued [samf10] by hoser0eh Jan 27, 2008 (6:14 pm)
Replying to: samf10 (Jan 27, 2008 12:38 pm) Crossover update. I went to both the Toyota and GM (Canadian) sites to build and price the Highlander and Enclave. (I only do this if the vehicle is still on my list after the first test drive.) I noticed at the GM site that the Enclave won an award from the Automobile Journalist Association of Canada (AJAC) as best new CUV above $60,000. To get it to that incredible price, they had to load it up with every conceivable option. I’m guessing they did this so it wouldn’t compete against the Acadia in the 35K-60K class and the Outlook in the under 35K class. The interesting thing is, the Enclave beat out some pretty nice vehicles: BMW X5, Mercedes Benz GL-Class, Mercedes Benz M-Class. Even more interesting perhaps is that the other two Lambdas did not win their divisions. The Highlander, Veracruz, CX9, Pathfinder, Tribeca, and Volvo XC70 were in the 35K-60K group with the Acadia, so they did not compete directly against the Enclave. This group was won by the Saturn Vue. I’m not sure how the ratings were determined, but obviously they were grouped on price rather than by size. Anyway, I priced a base Enclave CX, with the trailering package and delivery charges at 42665 before tax. I would have liked to include the backup camera, but it is part of a $4300 package only. If I buy the Enclave, I’ll probably get an aftermarket camera. The Highlander SR5 model (which adds the power drivers seat, 6 disc cd, auto rear liftgate, backup camera) priced out at 44,300 after adding trailering items and delivery charges, but before taxes. Of course, these are list prices, before incentives and dealer discounts. I know the Americans who read these posts will probably fall off their chairs, at how expensive vehicles are in Canada. I then went to a website that shows you (for a small fee) the Canadian retail and dealer cost prices for these vehicles (I’m not sure if it’s okay to mention the name of that site here, so I won’t). The difference between dealer cost and retail price on both vehicles is almost exactly $4000. I always go in with this information and tell the dealer I would be happy to allow them 25% of the difference, and usually end up negotiating it to around 30%. Hopefully that will work this time too. Our plans for the coming week are to take the Highlander and Enclave for a second test drive, plus either the Veracruz or CX9. I’ll let you know how it goes.
#5323 of 7147 Re: Honda CRV [biscuit_xls] by ateixeira Jan 27, 2008 (6:16 pm)
Replying to: biscuit_xls (Jan 25, 2008 9:02 pm) First off I wanted to say I appreciate your informative, balanced posts. Thanks for answering my questions, too.   I checked one out in person today at the DC Auto Show, ended up going a day later than planned, but I love auto shows and it's always worth going.   Saw the paddle shifters you mentioned, though the steering wheel was locked at a weird angle so it was hard to get a good feel for their use. I think they would be great for the V6 since it's a 6 ratio traditional auto, I just thought it was a bit odd for a CVT to simulate gears, whatever the reasoning.   They had 2 at the show, both V6s, though, no 2.4l w/CVT, bummer.   The 3rd row seemed tiny to me. My kids are 8 and 5, and big for their age, but I wouldn't put them there. That's just me, FWIW.   Fold them and the floor didn't seem totally flat. Yours looks better with that carpet there, at the show they take the mats out so they don't get stolen, so it looked unfinished.   The tail gate idea is interesting, though it's a two step process to open it wide. I guess most of the time you'd just lift the hatch, and that lip would keep cargo from rolling out. Fair trade for the utility of a tail gate seat, I suppose.   The wife wasn't a fan of the styling. She ruled it out right then and there. I checked it out anyway, though. (we're shopping for her, though)   We had just come from the 09 Forester, they were indeed pretty close together, Mitsu right next to Subaru. Sadly, no STI was there to compare to the EVO on display.   Any how, the moonroof is small compared to Subaru's. The Forester's opening is the same width but more than twice as long. Forester also had huge windows and the interior felt a lot airier, brighter. Best visibility in its class. Possibly the best visibility among any vehicle on the market. You see everything. I sat in the driver's seat and my 5 year old walked behind the car, and I could see his neck. In the Outlander I could only see his eyes, and he would disappear in the rear/side view in a blind spot. Not as bad as, say, the Rogue (Nissan should call it the Nissan Blindfold), which we also checked out, but not nearly as good visibility as the Forester.   That was excacerbated by the black interior on the Outlander. It's just too much, black plastic all around, black leather, and then black carpeting. You feel like the Prince of Darkness. The audio gagdets and sub woofer made it feel more like a huge, black plastic boom box than a family vehicle.   Your interior looks far better, is that Ivory though? I'd worry about stains if that's the case. Or is it just light gray?   I popped the hood to check the engines (both V6s), and again the prop rods lose to the very nice and unique hood struts on the Forester.   Outlander has more rear leg room, but the Forester's has improved as well.   I measured the cargo bay, and was surprised at how narrow the cargo floor is on the Outlander - just 38" between the wheel wells. Length is good, about an inch more than the Forester, but the Outlander actually gives up a whopping 4 inches of cargo width to the smaller Forester due to wheel well intrusion. That was a big surprise.   If it were for me, I'd test drive both. In fact, I probably still will, because I'm curious to test your opinion on the handling. Edmunds did rave about the Forester's handling, so it would be interesting to see which one drives better. I'll try to drive them on the same day. Replies to this message: biscuit_xls (Jan 27, 2008 8:54 pm) ateixeira (Jan 28, 2008 9:11 am) chelentano (Jan 28, 2008 9:25 am) and 4 more... dstew1 (Jan 28, 2008 6:57 pm) and 1 more...
#5324 of 7147 Compact Crossovers by ateixeira Jan 27, 2008 (6:25 pm)
We checked out a lot of these. I'll share some quick thoughts.   Jeep Compass: felt tiny inside, with cheap materials. Needs a lot of improvement Jeep Patriot: see Compass. Rogue: terrible, just awful, visibility. What is it with these massive D-pillars? RAV4: an oxymoron - a big compact. Some visibility issues, gate blocks curb side. Sante Fe: roomy and may sneak on to our short list as a value-priced underdog. CR-V: roomy but has poor visibility. Wife found it ugly. RD-X: looks much nicer, but it seemed a bit small, like the CX7.   We've already looked at and even driven the Vue, CX7, and a few others. Wife likes the Forester, RAV4, and Santa Fe, so we'll probably test drive those.
#5325 of 7147 Re: Honda CRV [ateixeira] by biscuit_xls Jan 27, 2008 (8:54 pm)
Replying to: ateixeira (Jan 27, 2008 6:16 pm) My Outlander has the tan interior because I thought the black was a little too dark. I'm happy with the tan, it has a black dash, black carpet, a black steering wheel, and graphite/silver accents. It's been easy to keep clean so far.     For some reason I never test drove or cross-shopped the Forester, I drove the Tribeca twice though and thought it was OK, a little overpriced...almost $10k more than my Outlander. The Forester looks like It doesn't have a lot of things I needed or wanted... Nav, Bluetooth, HID, 3rd row in a pinch, 18" wheels, Sirius radio. And some smaller points like Premium fuel vs. Regular for the Outlander. The auto tranny in the Subaru is only 4 speeds vs. 6 in the Outlander, etc.   But I know how it is, if the wife likes the Subaru better you don't have a lot of choices. You should sneak out and test drive the loaded Outlander though, just for fun. It has so much technology you might not be able to appreciate it until you get used to it, I was lucky to have a saleperson that showed me all of the cool features. It's actually very simple to use.   BTW, I added a wide-angle infrared rear view camera to mine so I have good vision out the back. Under $50 and it plays on the 7" DVD display when I put it in reverse. It even taps into the proximity grid built into the stock head unit. We have a pretty good Outlander forum (www.mitsubishiforum.com) for tech stuff like that.       Replies to this message: ateixeira (Jan 28, 2008 9:11 am) chelentano (Jan 28, 2008 9:25 am) ateixeira (Jan 28, 2008 9:49 am) and 3 more... dstew1 (Jan 28, 2008 6:57 pm) ateixeira (Jan 29, 2008 7:13 am)
#5326 of 7147 Re: Crossover Comparison continued [samf10] by biscuit_xls Jan 27, 2008 (10:17 pm)
Replying to: samf10 (Jan 27, 2008 12:38 pm) "Thanks for the input. I would actually look at the Outlander but too many consistent reviews mention drawbacks in comfort, utility, and mpg (for size) and price for what you get. In Edmunds inside line comparison test of compact SUV's it came in 4th behind the RAV-4, Rogue, CR-V. I am looking more towards a mid-size, and if I were to more compact it would be the RDX for a 2-3K more and much better. Same time I do like to check out these vehicles myself and not just based on reviews, but if there is a consistent consensus from multiple reviews on a car, tends to be true. Maybe i'll check it out though."   If you read that review the major factor that hurt the Outlander was pricing because they chose the highest level Outlander. Pricing was a whopping 25% of the evaluation, the cheapest car got the most points (100), and the Outlander got last. Choose a V6 4WD Outlander without Nav and it would have been the cheapest, which would have put it neck and neck with the RAV4 for 1st place.   You really need to drive the vehicles. A review like that has so many subjective factors that it can become humorous why one vehicle wins over another. For example, they tout the RAV4 mileage, when in fact it was only 1mpg better than the Outlander.   Go drive 'em all at least a couple of times. Replies to this message: freealfas (Jan 27, 2008 10:32 pm)
#5327 of 7147 Re: Crossover Comparison continued [biscuit_xls] by freealfas Jan 27, 2008 (10:32 pm)
Replying to: biscuit_xls (Jan 27, 2008 10:17 pm) along those line you further have to barter the deal to see what the numbers are really are going to come to as there are all kinds of things that factor into the bottom line. just going off of edmund's et al is going to get you close, but until you do it yourself in your local you really can't say how the number will fare.

You are here: Forums SUVs Crossover SUV Comparison