Last post on Oct 15, 2013 at 8:22 AM
You are in the Honda Pilot
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
#7259 of 7355 Re: 2012 nissan rogue has vibration issues [ateixeira]
Jun 26, 2012 (11:14 am)
The OP has a CVT-equipped Altima and likes it. That said, when I've ridden in a friend's CVT-equipped I4 Altima I've not noticed any odd vibration issues. There's definitely a disassociation between engine revs & speed/acceleration but NVH was nothing out of the ordinary.
The Outlander Sport's engine/CVT combo is pretty buzzy but it's only a 2L and is generally considered a little underpowered; the 2.4 in the regular Outlander should be fine.
#7260 of 7355 Re: 2012 nissan rogue has vibration issues [fushigi]
Jun 26, 2012 (11:18 am)
I'm fine with CVTs also...so shouldn't be a problem, just some getting used to, for newbies.
#7261 of 7355 Re: Nissan Rogue vs Mazda 5 vs Mitsubishi Outlander [ateixeira]
Jun 27, 2012 (9:02 pm)
Only slight doubt I have about Mitsu is their long term viability in the US. The warranty is a nice feature compared to the competition and I tend to keep my cars for at least 5 yrs and then some (a paid off car is nice....)
Yeah, if the Mazda 5 had the SkyActiv engine that would probably make my mind up for me. Also, the bike will fit easily in the 5 with room to spare.
The bike should fit in the Rogue with back seats down - according to my tape measure! Would probably want to bring the bike to the dealer to make sure.
#7262 of 7355 Re: Nissan Rogue vs Mazda 5 vs Mitsubishi Outlander [fushigi]
Jun 27, 2012 (8:56 pm)
Yes, have been looking at the Outlander ES since I can get it for around $20K, give or take right now. The Sport is too small for the bike.
BUT, last night I test drove a 2010 Outlander GT that was fully loaded; 25K miles on it and was owned by an older couple who just traded it in for a 2012. Seemed in superb condition and had more gadgets than I need....navigation, back up cam, etc. They said I could get it for around $25K on a vehicle that went for $33-34K when new. Sound right?
Not sure I want to spend the extra $5K though esp since I plan on keeping my Altima for a while....
#7263 of 7355 Re: Nissan Rogue vs Mazda 5 vs Mitsubishi Outlander [godeacs]
Jun 28, 2012 (8:53 am)
Interesting. I'm not sure why someone would trade a 2010 in on a 2012; there weren't any significant updates to the car & 25K miles is "barely broken in".
I'll say this: You very quickly see the value in the backup cam. After getting it in my '10 Outlander GT I'm convinced I'll get one in every car - sedan or CUV - from here out. I love it. Just this past weekend I had to back in to a narrow parking space (narrow enough that we folded in the mirrors after we got out of the car) in a downtown Chicago lot & pulled it off first try with no need for pulling forward to make corrections.
On the down side, the 2010 shipped with navi maps that were a little dated even then. There is an update available (released around the beginning of 2012) but it costs almost $200. If you pursue the GT and it's being offered by a Mitsu dealer, make sure they upgrade the maps to the current ones as part of the purchase agreement.
$25K on a dealer lot sounds reasonable for a pre-negotiation price assuming it also has the Rockford-Fosgate stereo & sunroof. But you can probably get them down to around $23K including the navi update unless they have a lot in it.
Check Edmunds and other sites that list dealer used car inventories. You should be able to confirm if the equipment level & miles match up to the asking prices.
GT considerations: Fuel economy on the V6 will be worse than the 4 cyl. I have a lifetime average of 21.2MPG over almost 24K miles. The V6 runs best on premium gas but will do fine on regular or midgrade. You won't notice a power difference. That said, running on regular you'll lose around 0.5MPG so using less expensive gas is cancelled by getting worse fuel economy. Once I determined that I just stick with premium all the time. Here in Illinois that's 92-93 octane w/10% Ethanol.
No roof rack. You can read batman47's posts in the Outlander threads if that's a concern; he went aftermarket IIRC. Personally, as loading on top the vehicle is awkward and I've not needed to shove anything up there so far, it's not a concern. In any case roof racks are generally bad for aerodynamics and wind noise.
You should also read batman47's posts about his South American journey in a '10 GT. He took one from sea level to 15K elevation through areas that barely had roads. Definitely gives you a good feeling for the car's durability.
#7264 of 7355 Re: Nissan Rogue vs Mazda 5 vs Mitsubishi Outlander [fushigi]
Jun 28, 2012 (1:12 pm)
I agree w/your pt about the trade in after only 2 years. Seems strange to me too, which I mentioned to the salesman.
Yes, the back-up cam is a great safety device but the Nav system I def do not need - or the worry/expense of keeping it updated.
They have listed the vehicle at $26K and am sure they will come down some. It does have the sunroof (again something I do NOT need) and the Rockford-Fosgate stereo which sounded nice but again something not on my "need to have " list for a new vehicle.
So...would be paying for stuff I don't need and/or wouldn't use that much. Plus the gas mileage differential is a concern. I want a vehicle that gets at least in the mid 20s, preferably higher, but no hybrid.... And I darned sure to not want to pay fro premium fuel......
I've read batman's reports and am impressed - though not sure why anyone wouldn't undertake such trips..... Nice to know the Outlander survived rather nicely. My driving would not be anywhere as severe.
So.....if I go the Outlander route the ES should meet all my needs.....
Thanks for all your comments/tips!
PS Almost forgot.....the same dealer has a 2010 ES with the same mileage (around 25K) and looks to be in good shape. Asking $15500....both are not "certified" so there's a $10K differential between the GT and ES. probably need to test drive it too....
#7265 of 7355 Re: Nissan Rogue vs Mazda 5 vs Mitsubishi Outlander [godeacs]
Jun 28, 2012 (1:26 pm)
So it did have the sun-n-sound package. I also have the towing kit but otherwise it sounds a lot like mine.
Regarding the cost of premium, it amounts to an extra $2-2.50 a tank. To me it's insignificant especially since I drive a below-average number of miles. But I can see your point that when you add that to reduced MPG from a V6 and a slight reduction for AWD the difference over a FWD 4 cyl version will be noticeable. I like to have the power on tap and am willing to pay more to get it, but not everyone agrees.
The ES does sound like the better fit for you. If you think of anything other questions please post. You haven't really gotten much feedback on the Rogue or 5 in this thread.
#7266 of 7355 Re: Nissan Rogue vs Mazda 5 vs Mitsubishi Outlander [fushigi]
Jun 28, 2012 (6:34 pm)
Checked out the 2010 ES tonight; mileage is 24683 and they lowered the price to $14995 according to the sales mgr but their web site had it listed for $14700! The salesman said they would honor the lower price. Will go back in the AM and they will let me take it home for the day to check, make sure the bike fits, OK, etc. Also ran me the Carfax which was clean - 1 owner in 2 yrs, no incidents, etc.
Edmunds shows dealer retail "clean" at $16284 and "outstanding" as $17224. It's def clean and then some so seems like a good deal. It's been on the lot for 41 days and have lowered to try and sell before 50 days....must not be many used Outlander fans around here.....
Oh, it's Gray/Black which is a nice combo IMO.
Yeah, we should be posting this in the Mitsu Outlander forum now. No big deal - wasn't expecting much support for the Rogue or Mazda 5 anyway. The 5 is my "back up" vehicle if the bike has issues with the Outlander...
#7268 of 7355 2012 nissan rogue has vibration issues
Jun 30, 2012 (9:33 am)
Prospective buyers of the nissan rogue should be aware of vibration issues coming from the cvt transmission. This is next to impossible to get used to. It makes for a terrible driving experience.