Article Comments - 2007- '08 Compact Crossovers Comparison Test

47 messages, Last post on Oct 09, 2007 at 5:06 AM

You are in the SUVs Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester

What is this discussion about? Honda CR-V, Nissan Rogue, Toyota RAV4, Mitsubishi Outlander, Car Comparisons, SUV

2007-'08 Compact Crossovers Comparison Test - These small crossovers are evolving into niches just as distinct as you'll find in the car market. There are practical ones, sporting ones, tough ones and comfortable ones. We've brought together the 2007 Honda CR-V, 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander, 2008 Nissan Rogue and 2007 Toyota RAV4. All share a gestalt of efficiency and social responsibility, yet each has a unique set of qualities and options. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 4 of 5: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; Prev; Next; Last

#28 of 47 Re: Article Comments - 2007--"08 Compact Crossovers Comparison Test [actualsize] by chelentano Sep 13, 2007 (6:20 pm)
Replying to: actualsize (Sep 13, 2007 3:43 pm) >> The RAV4 has superior interior volume and an ultra-low liftover height precisely because it does not have a spare tire hung beneath the floor. Ok, may be I could buy this as an advantage, but why Toyota did not change the door design for American market to swing it to the other side, so we could unload car on a curbside? This is an arrogance on Toytota's part. Why bother? These Americans will buy it anyway! They buy everything, especially with Toyota label. They even put in on the first place! No navigation, no bluetooth, no fast key, no xenon, lousy stereo, outdated 5-speed tranny, lower owner ratings, average warranty, door swings to the wrong side: what a "BENCHMARK"!!!
#29 of 47 Re: Good Observations/Comments, Disagree with Rankings [chelentano] by donnaaries Sep 13, 2007 (7:45 pm)
Replying to: chelentano (Sep 13, 2007 6:01 pm) By agreeing w/ the RAV4 being in first place I am implying that the RAV4 offers decent off roading capability (for a CUV) plus good cargo space with better acceleration and comfort than the Outlander. These are facts. However, I personally think the rear design is unattractive. But that is an opinion and people will view that differently. Replies to this message: chelentano (Sep 14, 2007 7:08 pm) dodo2 (Sep 16, 2007 7:57 pm)
#30 of 47 looks are not important by klas Sep 13, 2007 (11:11 pm)
Looks of CUVs were not taken in consideration in this particular review. The idea behind CUVs is practicality at lower price while offering decent gas mileage. Rav4 wins in the latter, but Outlander offers a lot more bang for your buck. I personally bought one for practicality first, then warranty and as a bonus I think it has great looks.
#31 of 47 read end on RAV-4 by prndldriver Sep 14, 2007 (3:24 pm)
The full size spare tire on the back of the Toyota means every time I would open the cargo area I'd also be moving a 40 lb tire. This is ridiculous, especially when this category is often suggested as a market of busy families I consider the tire problem a major design flaw and it makes me wonder what else is designed wrong with the vehicle. Who wants to move 40 pounds+ just to put two grocery bags inside? I do agree with the person who notes that if the RAV-4 is the benchmark that implies that it's the benchmark for the entire segment, not just these four CUVs. Sorry moderator. Unfortunately, I can't see how the testors could give it 'benchmark' status with the stupid spare tire design. What exactly are they looking for? How can they also give the Honda such high marks with the small engine that's really built for a Civic? It's also has a very bumpy ride. These two factors alone strike it from 'thinking person's' car in my book. The interior seems rather dull inside, too. I also find this to be a weird review as it includes the Nissan that's not even for sale yet. While I like the Outlander somewhat, it can get expensive really fast and the ride is still rather bumpy. At least it has a bigger engine.
#32 of 47 Re: Good Observations/Comments, Disagree with Rankings [donnaaries] by chelentano Sep 14, 2007 (7:08 pm)
Replying to: donnaaries (Sep 13, 2007 7:45 pm) Better acceleration is the only the fact. "Good cargo space" you get at the expence of having heavier and bigger vehicle and ugly rear tire. Everything else you've said are not facts. What does it mean "RAV4 offers decent off roading capability (for a CUV)"? If it's has top ranking it's should be the best, not just "decent". And it can not be the best, since in can not run in AWD lock mode above 25 MPH speeds, while the Outlander can do it at any speed. And where is the "better comfort"? Dull interior, lousy stereo, no navigation, no fast key, no bluetooth, and I would not exactly feel a lot of comfort swinging 40-lb rear door which would also block my access to the curbside. Replies to this message: dodo2 (Sep 16, 2007 7:57 pm)
#33 of 47 Another Overwrought Segment by ericying Sep 15, 2007 (3:22 am)
Ever since Honda and Toyota more or less created and popularized this particular segment (Small SUV, Wagon, CUV, whatever), each subsequent model and iteration has become more and more bloated in terms of weight, engine displacement, and other unnecessary features - a third seat?? Really, do we need high-performance engines with paddle shifters in a vehicle that's meant for economical utility, not g's at the slalom. The real world MPG on these models, especially in light of how they are marketed as economical is disgraceful. My full size minivan, with comfortable 7-passenger seating and twice the cargo room of these models gets real-world mixed highway/city MPG in the 22-25 range. The original RAV and CRV were at least twenty percent more efficient than the current models. Now that I think about it, my sister's brand-new Tahoe delivers the same fuel economy as one of these "compact SUV's". Something has gotta change, folks. Replies to this message: cbmorton (Sep 15, 2007 8:15 am) klas (Sep 15, 2007 8:31 am) biscuit_xls (Sep 15, 2007 5:00 pm) rcpax (Sep 16, 2007 11:02 pm)
#34 of 47 Re: Another Overwrought Segment [ericying] by cbmorton Sep 15, 2007 (8:15 am)
Replying to: ericying (Sep 15, 2007 3:22 am) The original ones were "at least" 20% more efficient than the current models? That's a good one. Having owned an original RAV4 and now a new V6, it's the new one that's actually noticeably better on gas overall, despite being much larger, weighing hundreds of pounds more and having more than twice the power. Now that's progress. What was that again about something needing to change?
#35 of 47 Re: Another Overwrought Segment [ericying] by klas Sep 15, 2007 (8:31 am)
Replying to: ericying (Sep 15, 2007 3:22 am) You need to get your facts straight. First of all Tahoe doesn't deliver the same fuel economy, second of all vans do not have better mpg. You can start with checking rated mpg http://autos.msn.com/research/compare/default.aspx?c=0&n=3&i=0&tb=0&ph1=t0&ph2=t- - - 0&dt=0&v=t105212&v=t103782 Also, you do pay a lot more for either one and not even get 4x4 option. Personally, getting a van just because it has the same gas mileage doesn't sound that appealing. I want nice looking CUV not a soccer mom car.
#36 of 47 Re: Another Overwrought Segment [ericying] by biscuit_xls Sep 15, 2007 (5:00 pm)
Replying to: ericying (Sep 15, 2007 3:22 am) Oh yeah right, a Tahoe gets the same fuel economy... here are few quotes from www.tahoeworld.com about 2007 Tahoe mileage: "I have an 07 Tahoe and I get an average of 12 MPG in city" "11 to 13 and maybe a bit more on highway with a light foot is about what I expected." "When I do all city driving it goes down to 13.5 (eventually), and I just came back from a 400 mile trip and it went up to 14.9." "I rececntley added the K&N intake setup and it seemed to boost it from 11.4 to about 12.7 mpg." That looks like real world 13mpg for the Tahoe, my Outlander gets 20 city and up to 25 on the freeway.
#37 of 47 Re: Good Observations/Comments, Disagree with Rankings [chelentano] by dodo2 Sep 16, 2007 (7:57 pm)
Replying to: chelentano (Sep 14, 2007 7:08 pm) I think the only significant thing that this comparo shows is that Edmunds cannot produce a credible comparison (incompetence or on purpose, I don’t know), based on FACTS and DATA. If one would use the Edmunds's data (the real test data from the Outlander's Full Test) and scoring system correctly, the Outlander would win 3 categories - Performance, Features and Price which is 75% of the total score. I'm not sure about the "Evaluation Score" as they don't list the "30-point” evaluation criteria, but they suggest some things that are subjective (“The evaluation covered everything from exterior design to yaw delay") on top of the 5% subjectivity already included with “Personal Rating” and “Recommended Rating”. I just can’t figure out why did they have to alter the Outlander’s performance numbers? This can’t be an honest mistake since they underlined in their comments that they couldn’t get better then 9.0 sec 0-60 mph. My wife, who is the opposite of a car enthusiast, would do better LOL….. The Outlander is a 8.0-8.5 sec 0-60 mph car no doubt about it. Oh, and I think the 60-0 mph braking numbers are reversed between the Outlander and the RAV4. At least now they are not claiming anymore that the RAV4 stops in 120 feet from 60 to 0 (what a joke!).