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 Saturn Outlook Compare the CX-9, Veracruz, Pilot, Acadia, Outlook, Enclave and Freestyle
7147 messages, Last post on Dec 05, 2009 at 5:13 PM
You are in the Saturn Outlook Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
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? |
|
|
Replying to: fushigi (Jul 29, 2009 7:13 pm) We got the PZEV 2.5i X Limited model. For some strange reason, the PZEV Forester actually makes 5 horses MORE than the non-PZEV. Plus it's probably the lightest model in its class, so power/weight ratio is probably the best among the base 4 banger engines for the class. I'd like to say I did it for the environment but the truth is I'll take the 175hp version of the engine.  If you like sixes check out the new Outback 3.6l H6 models, EPA is 18/25 and they're smooth and powerful (same engine as the Tribeca in a lighter package). Plus it's actually tuned for 87 octane, the press materials say even the power outputs are rated with cheap gas. Toyota's 3.5l V6 is a great engine but I do wish they would let Subaru engineers tune their automatic transmissions. Toyota owns a portion of Subaru now.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Jul 30, 2009 9:24 am) I'll grant the better fuel economy in the Subaru but it'd take a lot of years to earn back the higher price. And during those years, the Mitsu would have more warranty coverage.
|
|
|
Replying to: fushigi (Jul 29, 2009 7:13 pm) Let's say you drive your vehicle for a total of 160,000 miles over the next 10 years. That means an average of 16,000 miles per year. At a combined average of 22 MPG (which is what I get in the F-XT), that means you will consume 727 gallons of gas, per year. If the price difference between 87 and 91 AKI is roughly 30c, then that means it will only cost you $218/year extra, in fuel. Is that too much? The turbo's are very reliable on these machines. If you head to some of the Subaru enthusiast websites, you'd be hard pressed to find an OEM turbo failure.
|
|
|
Replying to: fushigi (Jul 30, 2009 12:02 pm) 1. Will Mistubishi be around to honor that warranty? They were down 42% last month and some analysts are suggested they should leave the US market: http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/10/report-analysts-urge-mitsubishi-suzuki-to-exi- t-u-s-market/ Will they be strong enough to survive for 10 years, the length of that warranty? Something has to change. 2. Resale value. Subaru shines here. The residual for a Forester on a 3 year lease is 59% even with 45,000 miles. With 12k miles per year it's in the 60s, which is class best. ALG also gives them 5 stars: http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/10/report-analysts-urge-mitsubishi-suzuki-to-exi- t-u-s-market/ Outlander gets 3 stars, but think about it - if Mitsubishi bails out of the US, your residual will plunge immediately. ALG dropped residuals on Chryslers by 8% the minute they went in to bankruptcy. So that's one risk if you keep it a long time (warranty), another if you don't (residual). If they give you big enough discounts to make the Outlander a bargain it may not even matter to you. $6 grand is $6 grand. You may get that much less when you sell it, but you won't have to pay the cost up front either. Mitsu is hurting, though, so there's no way they can sustain a business here in the US giving away their cars. Subaru is financially strong - sales are only off 0.8% this year, #1 among manufacturers. Plus IMHO the Outback is a lot nicer (in a higher price class so it should be).
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Jul 30, 2009 9:18 am) Frankly, I simply don't understand the rave auto press reviews. It's certainly a dramatic improvement, in terms of interior appointment, on the former Forester model but we weren't taken with it. Perhaps the turbo delivers far better performance. In any event, my cousin has an Impreza and his feelings about it are "meh." I was predisposed to like the Outback and Forester. Zero-for-two on that count. For the money RAV4 and CRV deliver more room for the same (or fewer) $. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: loach (Jul 29, 2009 6:40 pm) Outlander... my brother's colleague, a former CRV owner (from the period when Hondas were having reliability problems), currently has an '07 Outlander and likes it a lot. We didn't get past the showroom with one, however. The V6 probably rocks; however, the 4-cyl has the same hp as the CRV (so probably the same sluggishness on accel.) and the cargo volume is midway between the RAV and the CRV. The '07 redesign dramatically improved reliability, according to Consumer Repts. In the showroom, what turned us off was the interior materials... cheap like the Subarus. The RAV4 and CRVs felt much nicer inside... and that's where we spend our time while driving :>). CR says lots of road noise and stiff ride... still, CR recommends this model. Santa Fe... a little bigger than we wanted... it's in between the RAV4 and Highlander in size. Lower mileage and only comes in a V6. Again, the performance of the upgraded RAV4 4-Cyl won us over. Gives us the juice we need and great (relative) mileage. Also, Hyundais have good reliability reputations recently; however, Toyota and Honda are just money in the bank (even with the recent Toyota stumbles.) We concluded no reason to buy a Hyundai when we can get a CRV or RAV4. Finally, (although I didn't research it thoroughly) my impression is that the Santa Fe and Tuscon don't hold their values as well as the CRV and RAV4. Nissans... not big fans of either the Rogue or the Murano. The Murano is a bit heavy (4100 lbs.) and it's fuel economy not great c/w the RAV and CRV. Then there's the premium-gas-only issue for the Murano. For the money CRV & RAV give more room and better mileage. The Murano seemed a little squat when we looked at it. Toyota Venza... chasing the Murano in concept and marketing. Comfy and posh inside. We liked the RAV4 better for our $. Weren't really interested in driving it so can't comment further. In the showroom we noticed dramatically less legroom in the back seat c/w the RAV & CRV. Less cargo room. Just didn't interest us. Chevy Equinox... Consumer Repts rates the '09 model as having rock-bottom customer satisfaction, below avg reliability and fuel economy, and terrible body integrity. Also poor handling, poor ergonomic design in cabin, unstable rides at hwy speeds. I can't imagine that GM, having plunged into bankruptcy, magically fixed all of that in one swoop. Frankly, Detroit has lost us, probably for the remainder of our driving days. I see no compelling reason to look at any of its cars, redesign or no. Only Ford seems to have gotten its act together reasonably well. Was admiring a Fusion on the road yesterday. Really, I kept coming back to a bottom line... we saw no reason (in terms of reliability, cost, performance, safety and resale value) given that we liked the RAV and the CRV to venture beyond Toyota and Honda right now, both of which my wife and I and many in my extended family have owned during the past 20 yrs. (Our most recent cars have been an Acura CL and a Honda Civic.) The RAV & CRV are neck-and-neck at the top of the chart in reviews of this car category. Hope this helps. Anyone please correct me if I've missed something. We've been mulling this purchase for more than three years (we were living in Canada for a while, where cars are very expensive and the retail sector is like the US' was in the 70s, and wanted to wait until we moved back to the US to buy a new one.)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Saturn Outlook Compare the CX-9, Veracruz, Pilot, Acadia, Outlook, Enclave and Freestyle
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
