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: coldcranker (Jul 20, 2009 9:33 am) Yeah, if you bought them and put them on your Equinox you would be able to up it by ~1 mpg. I doubt anyone will do that though. Why all the fuss about the highway mileage only? The EPA says combined mileage is 26 mpg for the '10 Nox and 32 mpg for the '09 FEH ('10 numbers are not out yet). Now that's a big difference and truly worth noting given the fact that most people's miles are city miles these days. I know mine are. GM should have just said it's better than the gas Escape because that is 100% true. Their ad has way too many footnotes next to that comparison to the FEH to be taken seriously IMO. |
|
|
We test drove the rav4, the crv and checked out the equinox. Couldn't find a 4 cylinder equinox to test drive. We went with the rav4 since we could get 4wd and a very fast 6 cyl engine without taking a big mileage hit. The crv was ok but acceleration wasn't great. Not horrible but nothing like the rav 4 with a V6. Also loved the color that we got with the rav4. Didn't like all of the chrome in the equinox. Heard from an acadia owner that the chrome is really bad when sunny. The ride of the rav 4 surprised us too. We thought it was going to be really rough. Turned out to be about the same as the crv, maybe even better. The swing gate is a pain, but not a deal breaker for us. We like the outside spare since it allows for a hidden storage area under the main cargo area. Great for laptops, etc. Do yourself a favor and test drive a rav4.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: festivus (Jul 27, 2009 5:24 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: baggs32 (Jul 21, 2009 8:36 am) |
|
|
Replying to: fushigi (Jul 16, 2009 12:11 pm) I find it a bit odd, though, that you rule out the Forester XT since it uses premium fuel, when it gets 2mpg better (EPA combined) than the Outlander you rave about. That should more than offset the extra cost, in fact per EPA estimates you'll actually spend less to fuel up the Subaru. The Forester XT should also have a lower gas bill than the Santa Fe V6, which is nice but has fuel economy as one of its weaknesses. If you can stay out of the boost, you should do really well. The XT is geared taller than the non-turbo models. Drive it like a WRX and you should worry more about speed cams than gas prices. FWIW the 2010 Equinox looks great from the outside. Haven't checked out the inside yet. Is it a clone of the Vue? I test drove that but hated the numb steering, plus it was just too heavy. Beating a hybrid in highway MPG is pretty meaningless since hybrids are optimized for city driving. Commute in both and the Escape will kill the 'nox, hands down. Having said that 32 mpg is great for trips. Must be super-tall gearing. Sounds good to me. I wonder if real-world mileage will be that good, to be honest.
|
|
|
|
|
For what it's worth... My wife and I are going to get one of these three (RAV4 / Forester/ CRV) by the end of the year. We test drove all three yesterday and today after having thoroughly looked at and test-driven the CRV & RAV4 in March 2008. Took our five-year-old daughter along, too. We drove each car by ourselves with no salesman for an hour each. Observations... Not interested in the Forester XT (turbo) model... not comfortable with long-term performance and temperament of turbos. Regular Forester model in premium trim is boxy and feels cheap inside even after massive revamp this past year (esp plastic used on dash and doors.) Engine labors when accelerating on even small hills. You sit low. Neither of us were impressed. Massive sunroof though. Full marks for that. Otherwise... blech. Unattractive car. I just don't understand the Cult of Subaru. CRV... wife liked it a lot. Handles nimbly. V4 engine labors on acceleration upon hills and on entering freeways and accelerating to pass. Road noise and engine noise prominent  above 50 mph. Same observations I made driving the same CRV in 2008. We looked at the top-line CRV trim with leather seats and power everything. Rear visibility fine; side visibility on driver's side when turning to look before passing is OK but not nearly as good as our present Acura CL. We like the open floor without the transmission conduit between the front seats. However, what's with the toy shifter on the dashboard partially obscuring the rear-window defrost button when car is in PARK? Bizarre. RAV4... Wins hands down. Here's why... the V4 we tested v. the CRV is a 2.5 liter v. the CRV's 2.4 liter. It yields 179 hp v. 166 hp for the CRV. It also has 172 ft-lbs of torque v. 161 for the CRV. The CRV is also slightly heavier (30 lbs) than the RAV4. The incremental increase in power for the RAV4 means it can take steep hills easily without laboring. We tested both in the same hilly neighborhood. No comparison. Even my wife noticed how much more easily the RAV handled the acceleration and climb. And yet the 4-cyl RAV4 gets better mileage. Also, the CRV air conditioning is noticably weaker than the RAV4's. This is a common observation we're noticed in owner reviews. We live in D.C. where it is scorching this time of year. We drove both cars on 90-degree sunny days after the cars had been sitting on the back lot for hours. With similar dark interior leather the RAV4 cooled down much faster than the CRV. In addition, it's the little ergonomic things... RAV4 has normal shifter in between front seats. Feels substantial. Has a tiptronic feature to downshift from 4th to 3rd gears with a flick of the finger. CRV's shifter, as noted above, is a farce. RAV4 power mirror controls are right next to the cargo box at your fingertips next to shifter. CRV has them on the dash at the far left, partially obscured by steering wheel. You have to lean forward to access them. Emergency brake on RAV4 is at driver's right hand, as it is on manual cars. CRV's requires you to find it with your left foot near the floor. Annoying. RAV4 rear seats fold down with just a touch on a lever as you stand at the back hatch. In CRV you have to lean forward through the cargo area to pull the cords (and get your trousers dirty rubbing against the bumper as you lean in the back) or you have to walk around to the back door and lean into the cabin. CRV's rear seats need to fold forward (down) and then forward again to collapse flush into the floor of the car. RAV4's fold forward once and they're flush with the cargo area floor. Per Consumer Repts the RAV4 has 38.5 cu.ft. of cargo space. The CRV (partly because of it's tapered back end) has only 25.5 cu.ft. That's 50% more cargo space for the RAV, which is incredible in a car that gets better mileage than the CRV and has just as much legroom in the front and back seats. The RAV4 cabin feels roomier. The visibility through the windshield and to the sides of the driver is noticeably better and feels airier than the CRV. Perhaps the CRV pillars angle down a bit more, which reduces the aspect ration through which you view the road. Anyway, both my wife and I noticed this. Also, the RAV4 has better visibility to the side and back when the driver turns to pass. And it's the cosmetic differences (a matter of taste, of course)... The CRV has a plastic faux-brushed-metal finish on some of the surfaces that is harsh. The other plastic on the door handles is shiny and made me feel as though I were on the set of on of the "Alien" films. The outlines of the tach and speedometer is in shiny silver plastic that looks tacky. The black-on-silver readouts for the odometer,etc... feels a bit harsh. The RAV4 is not exactly luxuriously appointed on the dash but the the faux-brushed metal plastic is tastefully done and unobtrusive. The outlines of the tach and speedometer is in matte finish plastic that is subtle and tasteful, not garish like the CRV. The several tones of plastic on the doors and dash work well... they aren't polished walnut but this isn't a Lexus. They work and they're not annoying. And the black-on-amber digital readouts feel warm, though in direct sunlight the dash clock is harder to read than the CRV's. The RAV4 side-opening hatch seems to be a deal-breaker for some people. Not for us. I'm baffled why Toyota continues to market this car in the US with such a daft feature like the hatch. Honda fixed this with the latest CRV redesign a few years ago. Still, I don't find that the spare impairs rear visibility while driving to any meaningful extent. My wife and I also don't have to load the car while parallel parked very often (if ever) so that's not a big issue. As far as color schemes go, the CRV's are more subtle and interesting. However, that's minor. Let's be blunt... the CRV is designed and marketed for women. The RAV4 isn't. However, my wife clearly prefers the RAV4 because of the points I've mentioned. As for me, I am clearly happier with the RAV4. Many people will say the differences are a matter of taste. Some are; however, most of the items I have mentioned here are objective differences that make the RAV4 superior to the RAV4. 18 months ago the 4-cyl RAV4 had the same anemic performance on hills as the CRV. We would have gone with a V6 RAV4 costing much more. After the increase in hp and torque last year, however, the V4 RAV4 is clearly a great buy. In conclusion, the RAV4 wins easily over the other two. It's not even close. My wife and I have been lifelong Honda/Acura owners. She was ready to buy the CRV yesterday. However, after 20 minutes in the RAV4 this morning she volunteered that it was clearly the better car. It's all over but the buying... Hope this helps some people. And to all those contributors to these forums.. thanks. You have really helped us. Happy hunting!
|
|
|
Replying to: abbotsbury (Jul 29, 2009 2:00 pm) Nissan Rogue or Murano Hyundai Santa Fe Toyota Venza Mitsubishi Outlander How about the 2010 redesigns? Subaru Outback Chevy Equinox
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Jul 29, 2009 9:23 am) And my current car takes premium. I've noticed the price gap between regular and premium growing. It used to be 16-20 cents a gallon, now it's 20-30+. I didn't mind paying the extra for premium when I bought my car but I grow less tolerant of it over time. Final strike: Dealer network. Subaru is just barely represented in the area with 2 dealers within about 30 miles of my home in the Chicago suburbs. To compare, Mitsu has 7 dealers within 30 miles. While fuel economy matters, it isn't everything. I work from home 3-4 days a week currently so my annual mileage is down to something around 7K a year. All other things being equal I'll lean towards the more efficient vehicles but it isn't the #1 factor. Which is another nod towards a good V6; I'll take the extra 60-100HP in exchange for 1-2MPG any day of the week. Seeing that the 2nd row seats on the Equinox doesn't fold flat, it's dropping in position on my list. I will still drive it to compare but I'm doubtful it'll prove a winner. GM has done tall highway gearing in the past so I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case in the 'nox. It works, so I won't knock it, but I wonder how well it'll stay in the tall gear with a full load or while towing. Anyway, we're still looking but are definitely taking our time. Since I don't have a $4500 "clunker" to trade in the finances bear closer scrutiny. And my employer is in the real estate industry so there's the minor issue of long term job stability. We may not buy until year-end.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Jul 29, 2009 9:23 am) Not exactly just the tall gearing. There is an "Eco" button that must be pushed to achieve that EPA rating of 32 MPG. With it off the EPA rating drops to 31 MPG. I haven't figured out if it stays on when you shut the vehicle down and start it back up though. That could make a big difference in what people actually get. Here is a somewhat better explanation of the "Eco" button.
|
|
|
Replying to: abbotsbury (Jul 29, 2009 2:00 pm) An early congrats on the RAV4. What color? |
|
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
