You are here: Forums SUVs Saturn Outlook Compare the CX-9, Veracruz, Pilot, Acadia, Outlook, Enclave and Freestyle

Compare the CX-9, Veracruz, Pilot, Acadia, Outlook, Enclave and Freestyle

7126 messages,  Last post on Nov 18, 2009 at 1:27 PM

You are in the Saturn Outlook Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester

What is this discussion about? GMC Acadia, Mitsubishi Outlander, Subaru Forester, Hyundai Santa Fe, Ford Taurus X, Toyota RAV4, Nissan Rogue, Honda Accord Crosstour, Dodge Journey, Car Buying, Car Comparisons, SUV

#6927 of 7126 Re: RAV4 v. CRV v. Forester Post Test-Drives [ateixeira] by abbotsbury Aug 01, 2009 (9:40 am)
Replying to: ateixeira (Jul 30, 2009 9:18 am) ateixeira:   "It's not just Subaru Cultists that like the new Forester, it won Motor Trend SUV of the year, comparos in Automobile, MotorWeek Driver's Choice best small utility, and the XT model is Consumer Reports highest scoring small SUV as well. Forester won over the press, big time.    An early congrats on the RAV4. What color? "   Sorry, ateixeira, in my earlier reply I didn't address color. Actually, this is the big shortcoming of the '09 RAV in our opinion compared with the CRV. The '08 had a sort of greenish-gray color we both liked a lot but the '09 model didn't offer it.   The CRV's colors are much more appealing to us. The Glacier Blue and Green Tea especially appealed to my wife (savvy marketing by Honda!). In the RAV we liked the Pacific Blue but that's the color of our Acura and we'd like something different. The red with the tan interior is OK, too. We're going to wait until October to see if the '10 RAV color schemes offer something we like better.   We sold the Civic but right now we don't need a second car for a while. We'll buy at some point during the fall when inventories kick up. I notice a big drop in RAV4 inventories on lots this past week compared with when we looked in April. Was hard to find a Limited 4WD 4-banger to drive.   One final note about the rear gate on the RAV (the left-hand-side-opening door.) I noticed that the three or four RAVs we looked at last week were all built in Japan, not in the U.S. I found that odd (since nearly all the Hondas I have seen are built in Ohio.) Perhaps Toyota hasn't tooled a US factory to build the RAV, so it has one set of tooling for the Japanese market (driving on the left-hand side of the road) and uses those cars for export to the US. Does anyone know whether the RAV is built in the US?   When we lived in Ontario Toyota was building a new factory there to open in '08. I wonder whether it will build RAVs for the North American market. Replies to this message: vanman1 (Aug 01, 2009 3:28 pm) cbmorton (Aug 03, 2009 7:33 am) godeacs (Aug 04, 2009 9:06 pm)
#6928 of 7126 Re: SUV comparisons [robm2] by fushigi Aug 01, 2009 (11:59 am)
Replying to: robm2 (Jul 30, 2009 5:35 pm) robm2, the decision is simple and final. I won't consider a vehicle that requires premium fuel this time around. That $218 a year means I will have spent $2180 in 10 years. Is the Forester _at least_ that much cheaper up front?
#6929 of 7126 Re: SUV comparisons [ateixeira] by fushigi Aug 01, 2009 (12:15 pm)
Replying to: ateixeira (Jul 31, 2009 9:03 am) 1. You know, Mitsu has had that said about them for 15+ years. They're still here. The horse is dead; quit beating it. Is Oldsmobile still here? No. How long will Pontiac, Saturn, and FTM Chrysler be around? There are several doomed brands to avoid, but I'm not particularly worried about Mitsu.   And your link quotes the president of Mitsu:""We will never give up the U.S. market."   2. In my personal real-world history, resale plays in favor of the cheaper vehicle. I've already mentioned it in other threads comparing my '99 Galant to a similarly equipped Camry. The Camry would have been $3K more up front yet the resale is only $2K better after 10 years. The higher resale vehicle costs $1K more than the lower resale.   I don't have anything against Subaru, and being originally from Indiana I like that they build there, but their vehicles don't compare favorably against the competition in the criteria that matter to me.   Mitsu's biggest offense right now is the current gen Galant. It doesn't compare well to the competition at all. I wouldn't consider buying it to replace my current Galant even though my car has had great reliability and I'm a satisfied Mitsu customer.
#6930 of 7126 Re: SUV comparisons [baggs32] by vanman1 Aug 01, 2009 (3:24 pm)
Replying to: baggs32 (Jul 21, 2009 8:36 am) "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".   -----------   I think they want to get the attention of Ford Hybrid lookers. People think hybrids get better mileage than regular SUVs but that really only applies in the city. Hybrid highway mileage is usually very similar to non-hybrid models so if that's where you drive a lot, chances are you can save a bundle and get a Equinox instead.   That's my read. You are right though... the 32 MPG and over all mileage alone is very attractive and better than regular Escape or any other regular small SUV. Replies to this message: baggs32 (Aug 03, 2009 8:32 am) steve_ (Aug 03, 2009 8:39 am)
#6931 of 7126 Re: RAV4 v. CRV v. Forester Post Test-Drives [abbotsbury] by vanman1 Aug 01, 2009 (3:28 pm)
Replying to: abbotsbury (Aug 01, 2009 9:40 am) "One final note about the rear gate on the RAV (the left-hand-side-opening door.) I noticed that the three or four RAVs we looked at last week were all built in Japan, not in the U.S. I found that odd (since nearly all the Hondas I have seen are built in Ohio.) Perhaps Toyota hasn't tooled a US factory to build the RAV, so it has one set of tooling for the Japanese market (driving on the left-hand side of the road) and uses those cars for export to the US. Does anyone know whether the RAV is built in the US?" -----------   North American RAV production was to have shifted to Cambridge Ontario but when the recession slammed, the plant was put on hold. It's producing a little bit now but very small numbers from what I have heard. Toyota has way too much capacity and is loosing billions so who knows what will happen there. Replies to this message: cbmorton (Aug 03, 2009 7:33 am)
#6932 of 7126 Re: RAV4 v. CRV v. Forester Post Test-Drives [abbotsbury] by loach Aug 01, 2009 (7:07 pm)
Replying to: abbotsbury (Aug 01, 2009 9:25 am) Thanks for your reply. The only comments I have on your comments are with respect to the Murano, Equinox and Outback:   Murano - Although premium fuel is recommended, it is not required. Many Murano owners report good performance with regular fuel. Equinox - I would agree that the '09 and prior models may not stack up, but the 2010 looks like a game-changer. Outback - Not sure your concerns about cheap Subaru interiors apply to the 2010 model.   I don't expect any of these are things that will change your mind. Congrats on making your decision - I've got probably got a few more months of agonizing before I make one!
#6933 of 7126 Re: RAV4 v. CRV v. Forester Post Test-Drives [vanman1] by cbmorton Aug 03, 2009 (7:33 am)
Replying to: vanman1 (Aug 01, 2009 3:28 pm) Actually, Toyota built a brand-new plant in Woodstock, Ontario for the RAV4. The Cambridge plant is in a different city and assembles the Corolla, Matrix and RX350.   They've been building RAV4s in Woodstock since November of last year and are having trouble keeping up with Canadian demand for the vehicle, since it's been a hot seller in 2009. I don't know how much production makes it to the US, however - could depend on where in the US you're looking.   Short answer to the original question: yes, the RAV4 is built in North America but as you've already found, that doesn't mean you'll necessarily be able to find one on a lot near you.
#6934 of 7126 Re: SUV comparisons [vanman1] by baggs32 Aug 03, 2009 (8:32 am)
Replying to: vanman1 (Aug 01, 2009 3:24 pm) I think they want to get the attention of Ford Hybrid lookers. People think hybrids get better mileage than regular SUVs but that really only applies in the city. Hybrid highway mileage is usually very similar to non-hybrid models so if that's where you drive a lot, chances are you can save a bundle and get a Equinox instead.   I totally agree with you there. However the print and TV ads don't really state it that way and if you aren't paying attention to the fine print at the bottom you just might be mislead. They do a little play on words that is clever and I give them credit for it, but it can be very misleading.   After I typed that post I found out about the stupid "Eco" button you have to push to get from 31 MPG hwy to 32 MPG hwy. Don't think they mentioned that in the ads either. I still don't totally understand the purpose of that stupid button and I've given up trying to find out about it. I just hope Ford doesn't follow along with Honda, Toyota, and now GM by putting these stupid "Eco" modes in their FE fighters any time soon. They seem like a waste of engineering time and money to me. If you are going to make an FE fighter, whether it be gas or battery powered, then just leave it at that. Don't try to make it normal AND fuel efficient at the push of a button for cripes sake! Replies to this message: steve_ (Aug 03, 2009 8:39 am)
#6935 of 7126 Re: SUV comparisons [baggs32] by steve_ HOST Aug 03, 2009 (8:39 am)
Replying to: baggs32 (Aug 03, 2009 8:32 am) The Prius has an Eco button too. I couldn't tell much difference on the short test drive I took in one a month ago. It's not as bad as the EV button though - that lets you run on battery power alone. For a full half mile.
#6936 of 7126 Cheap interiors - par for the compact crossover class? by ateixeira Aug 03, 2009 (12:38 pm)
I guess the one thing that is surprising me about some of the comments here is that these interiors are nicer than some of their competitors. I didn't see it, and I was looking for it.   At the car shows I tend to focus on small crossovers, and you could argue they all have "cheap" interiors now. CR-V, RAV4, Forester, Outlander - all have cardboard headliners with dryer lint coverings. The days of padded headliners with perforated cloth liners, in this price class, seem to have passed.   Same for padded plastics on the dash - all have hard surfaces pretty much everywhere. You might see small variations in texture or color, but nearly all the surfaces are hard plastic.   Am I missing something? Does the RAV4 Limited get better materials than the more basic models? I sit in a RAV4 at every car show I go to, at least one or two per year, and it just doesn't match the interior quality of my Sienna, which itself isn't exactly premium, merely "average". Actually I sort of feel like its interior is among the cheaper designs. Adventurous, sure, but not upscale.   I was in NY for the auto show in April and the CR-V also gets the same cheap peach-fuzz-over-cardboard headliner. Looks like they spent 8 cents on the whole thing. Same exact thing for the Outlander.   Are we focusing on different things? I look at things like the headliner, the A-pillar, the dash, and it's pretty much universal for this class - all cheap and hard surfaces.   Ironically I think the Forester actually does better than average, especially the elbow rests - it definitely has more padding for the elbows on the doors (all 4 also), at least, for its class. Also, the texture of the plastic on the A-pillars is nicely done and matches the rest of the interior, a detail you don't get with most competitors.   My wife got the moonroof, so at least you don't see much of that cheap peach-fuzz headliner, and the perforated leather is actually quite nice, with 4 or 5 settings for the also nice heated seats. A couple of subtle blue LED lights glow over the center console, something you probably won't notice the first time you drive it.   We've owned it for a little over a year and my wife simple adores her Forester, so no regrets here. Try the 175hp PZEV model. It's light so that's adequate among the fuel sippers in this class, only the heavier RAV4 has more base power in a 4 banger and it's heavier.   The OB is nicer but we've not been wanting for more plush, to be honest. Honda left room above the CR-V for the Acura RD-X, and Toyota has approximately 17 SUVs positioned above the RAV4, too.   To be fair, I do have complaints about the Forester, may as well air them out. The cup holders are square. Hello? And the passenger seat is mounted too low, so add a height adjustment or just mount it 2" higher.   I even sat in a VW Tiguan and didn't really see the premium interior VWs are supposed to have. Peach fuzz headliner? You bet. Again they left room for the Audi Q5.

You are here: Forums SUVs Saturn Outlook Compare the CX-9, Veracruz, Pilot, Acadia, Outlook, Enclave and Freestyle