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 5 of 6: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; Prev; Next; Last

#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!).
#38 of 47 Re: Another Overwrought Segment [ericying] by rcpax Sep 16, 2007 (11:02 pm)
Replying to: ericying (Sep 15, 2007 3:22 am) 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 It is one of the biggest considerations I had when I was deciding which vehicle to buy. I drive a manual before my 07 Outlander, and I couldn't stand the rev and lag when I overtake on the freeway, so the paddle shifters are a blessing. It keeps my eyes on the road, and gives me power and acceleration when I want it, not exactly like a manual but very very close. And unlike a manual, I don't have to reach down on the stickshift to change gears. Of course it's silly to drive manual fully on a 07 Outlander because the 6 speed A/T is very smooth, and the computer adapts to your driving habits. It's so smooth that a hefty number of dealers and owners thought its a CVT rather than 6-speed A/T because above 2nd gear it's hard to tell the vehicle's shifting. The paddle shifters might not be "necessary", in the strictest terms, but hey, Mitsubishi is a company driven by motorsports, and they're giving us a cool toy that RAV-4 and CR-V doesn't offer, so why not take it. Turns out that "toy" is actually fun to play with.
#39 of 47 paddle shifters by chelentano Sep 17, 2007 (10:00 am)
Paddle shifters are there for convenience and safety first of all. It's like you have stereo volume control on your dash, but you also have on your steering wheel. You can adjust volume, while your both hands on steering wheel and you eyes on the road. Safety! Same thing with the paddle shifters: they simplify use of stick shift: your both hands are always on steering wheel. In Europe, way before paddle shifters was added to rally cars, and way before auto transmission become available, paddle shifters where installed on specially equipped cars for handicapped to provide them with more convinient way of driving - I have seen this cars myself. While these days very few people use manual transmission in US, in other countries of Europe and Asia vast majority of people still got used to stick shift. These people surely would appreciate paddle shifters. We American jus got a freebee toy to play. BTW I’ve recently read that Mitsu is number 2 selling brand in Australia, and number 1 selling brand in Russia.
#40 of 47 What? by klas Sep 17, 2007 (10:59 am)
#2 selling brand in Australia when they just announced that they are closing their plants (that produced only one type of car - Gallant equivalent) #1 selling brand in Russia? What's the source for that? I am from Moscow and Mitsu never been a popular brand Replies to this message: chelentano (Sep 17, 2007 1:21 pm)
#41 of 47 Re: What? [klas] by chelentano Sep 17, 2007 (1:21 pm)
Replying to: klas (Sep 17, 2007 10:59 am) Well, I have to make a correction. It's #1 selling brand, among those build outside of Russia. This would exclude cars assembled in Russia: Ford, Hyundai and Lada. According to this link, in 2006 Mitsu Lancer was the second best selling foreign car in Russia, after the Ford Focus, which is build in Russia: link title Also this article says, that Russia hold the first place in Misubishi sales in Europe: link title
#42 of 47 Let Mitsu be whatever it is right now by klas Sep 17, 2007 (2:07 pm)
Personally, I like where Mitsubishi stands right now. They are trying hard to compete with other car makers by offering lower price, better options and great warranty. If it happens that they get ahead of Toyota or Honda then we can all forget about all those things. So, if they want to rate it #4 fine by me Replies to this message: blufz1 (Sep 18, 2007 8:53 am) dodo2 (Sep 18, 2007 12:51 pm)