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
|
|
|---|---|
|
I was about to lease a base 4x4 rav4 and then I went and test drove the base model nissan rogue. I thought the rogue's interior was far superior and it the ride felt fine (i didn't go too far or fast). I read some reviews about the rogue's CMT which deterred me from considering it. What are your thoughts? (the price is the same) thanks!
|
|
|
Replying to: baggs32 (Aug 28, 2008 8:54 am) The production 3.5l Ecoboost makes a down-to-earth 97 hp/liter. I think an EcoBoosted 2.5l would make more sense, making perhaps 240-250hp or so.
|
|
|
Replying to: coldcranker (Aug 28, 2008 6:52 pm) The Mazda CX-7 ran on premium the first year it came out, but then Mazda tuned the engine to run on 87 octane, with no loss in power output (at least stated). If Eco means Economy, then I think it's important to tune those engines to burn 87 octane. Of course Eco could refer to Ecology, in which case emissions are more important than the type of fuel it burns. VW requires premium fuel. Not many turbos are tuned for 87 ocante. I agree with your just good enough theory when it comes to the performance. |
|
|
Replying to: tigerlily3 (Aug 28, 2008 8:37 pm) Car & Driver raves about Nissan's CVT, calling it the best in the business. I've only driven an Altima but I'd have to agree - it was seamless and always seemed to choose an optimal ratio. Having said that, other CVTs I didn't like as much, for instance the one in the Mitsu Outlander 2.4 CVT felt very disconnect, unresponsive. It will take some getting used to, with no shifts, plus the RAV4 has an unremarkable 4EAT automatic. Purely based on the powertrain, I think I'd actually pick the Nissan, but... The RAV4 is bigger inside, so you get more space for your money. I find the Rogue a bit small, and visibility is just about the worst in its class. The cargo area is just about the smallest as well. That may still be enough to meet your needs, but I found the Rogue made too many compromises for style. Drive them both, pay particular attention to the Rogue's tachometer, to see what it does in different circumstances. My guess is you will either love it (optimized ratios) or hate it (odd feel, droning at steady rpms).
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Aug 29, 2008 7:47 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: elizabeth15 (Aug 29, 2008 8:10 am) Since the V6 only gives up about 1 mpg, I'd actually recommend that engine. You'll be happy to have the extra power when you have a full load. The Rogue's CVT doesn't use fixed ratios, so some even say it has infinite ratios. In truth it varies over a range, from a minimum to a maximum overdrive ratio. In order of performance, I'd say it's RAV4 V6 1st, then Rogue, then RAV4 4 cyl.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Aug 29, 2008 7:37 am) Right. I'm assuming that concept version was maxed out give or take several horses. Since this one might go in the Fusion, Escape, etc. I'd bet it will be de-tuned to around 230-250 HP which is what the new updated 3.0L DT makes. |
|
|
Replying to: baggs32 (Aug 29, 2008 9:23 am) Here's why - to run on 87 octane the compression ratio has to be lowered, and one way to lower the effective compression ratio is to decrease boost. The catch is you sacrifice power in order to do that. Let's look at corporate partner, Mazda. The CX-7 makes 244 hp but can run on 87 octane. The specific output is a still good 106 hp/liter. The same engine in the MazdaSpeed 3 makes 263hp but requires premium fuel. Specific output is bumped up to 114 hp/liter, not a lot higher but enough that they had to up the fuel octane. So by that math it looks like a 2.0l could make 212 hp or so and still run on regular, but by the time you tune it to make 228hp Ford/Mazda engineers would put a premium fuel requirement on that bad boy. I'd love to be wrong, but I think 230-250hp from 2.0l would require more expensive premium fuel.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Aug 29, 2008 9:29 am) They do say the 3.5L EB will have 340 HP in the MKS and run on 87 octane. So that does fall in line with your numbers because that is 97 HP per liter. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Aug 29, 2008 9:29 am) Whatever happens with Ecoboost in the next couple of years, Ford may go for high MPG instead of all out acceleration capability. That would mean you could equal the performance of a Freestyle (a 4000 lb vehicle) with its 8.5 seconds 0-60 performance level, by using an Ecoboost 1.9L displacement engine, and expect to gain about 2 or 3 MPG over the '05-'07 Freestyle. I don't believe Ford's claim of gaining a full 20% greater MPG with equal power going from a non-aspirated 3.0L Duratec V6 to an equal power 4-cylinder Ecoboost. One way to get around the high-octane requirements of a turbo engine with decent compression ratio for fuel economy and power, is to run a small ethanol tank (2 gallons) next to your 19 gallon gasoline tank, and directly inject ethanol into the engine only when under high load conditions, preventing knock, enabling a high compression ratio for good fuel economy to be designed in. See Ecoboost plus ethanol injection - click here. One nice thing about that concept is that when the ethanol tank runs dry, like it will once in a while, your engine just runs at 3/4 power, but still gets you around until you can find 2 more gallons of ethanol to refill it.
|
|
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
