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
|
|
|---|---|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
| The Lambda clones did great in the www.iihs.org crash tests. In addition to that, their 4,800 lb weight should obliterate almost anything else it hits. In truth, though, the unit body construction with crumple zones should be less harsh on other vehicles than the skewering effects of a low set of frame rails slicing another car in two from body-on-frame SUVs such as the Expedition or Suburban. | |
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Aug 29, 2008 9:21 am) |
|
|
Replying to: coldcranker (Aug 29, 2008 1:11 pm) CR just tested the Cobalt SS and they averaged 22mpg on premium fuel, not terrible but not exactly anything to write home about, and this is an under 3000 lb car. Imagine a 4000+ lb crossover. Their Caliber actually managed 25mpg on regular fuel, so more mileage on cheaper fuel. Hmm, a Dodge Journey SS, anyone? |
|
|
Replying to: tigerlily3 (Aug 29, 2008 4:17 pm) It has a little bit more power than the CR-V, plus it weighs less. The Forester PZEV models make 175hp and it's among the lightest crossovers, so it performs adequately. It's a IIHS Safest Pick, and won 2 comparos in Motor Trend, and earned Consumer Reports highest rating, so the media seems to like it, too. Other strengths include excellent visibility. Weaknesses? The passenger seat is set low, for some reason, and the cup holders are square (why is beyond me). The base engine is not fast - but you can get the turbo XT model, just be ready to pay more and they recommend (not required, but still) premium fuel. |
|
OK, between the 2008 Santa Fe, 2008 Rav 4 and 2009 Subaru Forester, can anyone suggest pros and cons for all 3?
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Aug 29, 2008 4:53 pm) ...and the square cup holders is beyond idiotic.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: azerafan (Aug 31, 2008 5:53 pm) I'd go for the Rav4 if you want the excellent, high fuel economy, 3.5L V6 with 6-speed automatic, since it has great acceleration and smoothness. If you go 4-cylinder, the Subaru is my choice. There is one thing about the SantaFe that is great: its long warranty period. All good choices, so just get the one that is most economically sensible to you, the cheapest.
|
|
|
Replying to: coldcranker (Sep 01, 2008 4:18 pm) I don't see the big mileage difference Forester X gets 20/26 Rav4 - 6 gets 19/26 Forester XT 19/24 Seems a dead heat really unless you are driving very high mileage. There is no doubt that the V6 and 5EAT in the Toyo are a very smooth combination. If it is only about FE and you don't need AWD then the FWD Rav becomes an even better option. If you really need AWD the Subaru set-up is much smoother in loose traction than the Rav. Another thing to consider is the Rav's swing gate. Will you be doing much loading of the trunk while parallel parked? If so, I'd avoid it like the plague. Not such a big deal if you are always in a parking lot situation, but it is still heavy, and my boys couldn't reliably close it. We know folks who own the Rav and love the vehicle with the exception of the hatch.
|
|
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
