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
7126 messages, Last post on Nov 18, 2009 at 1:27 PM
You are in the SUVs Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Jan 27, 2008 6:16 pm)  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.   
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: samf10 (Jan 27, 2008 12:38 pm) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: biscuit_xls (Jan 27, 2008 10:17 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: samf10 (Jan 27, 2008 12:38 pm) Car sites and magazines make living off car advertising and they are not always objective or consistent. I am more interested in ratings by real-world owners. Real-world owners don't market or 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”, who drives a brand new car from dealership just for an hour and who sometimes wants to please its biggest customer-advertiser. For instance the comparo you mention puts RAV4 and CR-V ahead of the Outlander, but the real world owners give the Outlander higher ratings consistently throughout all three major consumer rating sites: MSN Autos: 2007 Outlander - 9.5 2007 RAV4 - 8.6 2007 Honda CRV - 9.3 edmunds.com: 2007 Outlander - 9.2 2007 RAV4 - 8.9 2007 Honda CRV - 9.1 Yahoo Autos: 2007 Outlander - 4.5 2007 RAV4 - 3.5 2007 Honda CRV - 3.5
|
|
|
Replying to: baggs32 (Jan 27, 2008 12:08 pm) Ummmmmmm, yes. My wife sits back there all the time for trips longer than 30 minutes because she can watch TV while I drive. Never heard a complaint about comfort. We also loaded it up with 4 adults and 3 kids for a 1200 mile round-trip. I did hear complaints, but they were more of the "are we there yet?" variety after hour number 5.
|
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Jan 27, 2008 10:52 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Jan 27, 2008 10:52 pm) Yes, magazines make money from advertising. No doubt about it. Do you have any proof that their comparos are swayed by how much advertising / money is given to the magazine for advertising purposes? This is a pretty strong claim, basically saying their reviews are bias. I'm sure I am not the only one who would like to see some proof. Personal opinion does not count. As for sales, consumers seem to think the CR-V and RAV4 are a better bet to purchase, since their sales figures just trounce Mitsu's for 2007. CRV : 218,160 RAV4: 172,752 Outlander : 14,190
|
|
|
Replying to: biscuit_xls (Jan 27, 2008 8:54 pm) I don't like the double-hump over the gauges, looks like a giant brassiere. Or Madonna's bustiere.  Or maybe I just need to get my mind out of the gutter.  The console is OK, I wasn't crazy about the textures of the black plastics, but it's matte and doesn't reflect so I guess that's functional. IMHO it looks fine for the $20-25k price range, but at $30k other interiors are nicer. You could argue that's a fair trade for the extra content. The outgoing Forester was smaller, the 09 is bigger and has a lot more features. NAV, back-up cams, Sportshift controls, Siruis. On the 234hp turbo, premium is recommended but technically not required. The higher-boost version of the same engine in the Legacy actually requires premium. Doesn't matter to us because we're shopping for the base 4 cylinder engines anyway. So I would put the Outlander SE 2.4l CVT AWD up against a Forester LL Bean model (moonroof, heated leather, etc), probably without NAV. I just ordered my 3rd Garmin and they more than meet our needs. Just got a Nuvi 200W model for only $199, and that's a 4.3" widescreen. Sold my c320 for $100 so the net cost to me was just $100, plus I got new maps in the deal. Map updates cost $75 so basically I got upgraded for $25.  Backup cam is bundled with NAV, right? So that means I would not get it. Can you get a sonar backup sensor? I like your solution but you need the GPS screen first. Factory GPS is about $2 grand and updates DVD run a couple hundred. We debated the merits in this thread and most agree that's still a bit overpriced. I love gadgets but I'm cheap! PS I changed the name of the title of the msg since we're no longer discussing the CR-V.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Jan 28, 2008 9:11 am) Backup cam and parking sensors are not part of NAV package: it's a separate dealer installed option, though I am not sure if it requires Nav system. I understand though that biscuit_xls installed an aftermarket backup cam for only $50: 10 times cheaper than OEM backup cam.
|
|
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
