Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Tiguan vs. Forester vs. CR-V



  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,803
    I would hardly consider Honda or Toyota cheap. They are considerably less expensive to purchase, while maintaining quality and assembly in countries whre they pay a decent wage to their workers.

    Rather than resorting to having cars assembled in third world countries (VW's are made in Mexico!!!), and have really CHEAP components that fail prematurely.

    The inferior component and inferior quality of assembly, even if charged premium pricing for, does not make a premium product. I am sorry, but such are the truths, and the VW's market share agrees with that.

    But, as I have said before, there is a difference in preception. To some a gold plated piece of dog poop would look like gold bar because it is shiny. And to others, it will be obvious that it is just gold plated piece of dog poop.

    As to offering this "marvelous" boy racer poseur transmission, Honda offers it on a $14,000 Honda Fit, and has been offering since the day it was brought over to the US market in 2005.

    Does VW offer this "marvelous" transmission in a $14,000 VW? This just destroyed your theory that Honda does not offer "latest and greatest." It does, and it does is for less because it knows how to build cars, rather coat dog poop with gold.

    The Formula 1 tansmissions are not the Tiptronic you have in the Tiguan. They don't have a torque converter.

    Honda's engine developments transfer directly into the street going vehicles wihin 2-3 years. Whether you want to believe it or not, but the current engines in Honda/Acura lines up, are the direct derivatives from the racing engines few years back. Yes, they are not identical, I agree to that. But, I also don't think there is a market for small displacement V6 engines that run at 15,000 RPM.

    Now, back to the 200 hp engine. When do you actually realize all that power? Are you racing from light to light? Are you driving on the autobahn? Chances are that by the time your turbo spools up, whoever you were raicing has already stopped at the next light.

    Maybe VW is just so over bloated that it needs the help of the turbo to get all that masss going?

    As to Honda and Toyota having Acura and Lexus as higher value brands, VW has Audi and Bugatti. Which goes back to my previous post that contained a misinformation that an "astute expert in all automotive" such as your self failed to catch. Audi's Quattro system has been around since the 80's and have been used in rally circuits, successfull. But, I guess you are no expert after all. Just a troll.


    Comparo 2010 Tiguan SEL vs 2010 CR-V EX-L
    MSRP * $33,215 $27,745

    Invoice * $30,919 $25,805

    Engine 2.0L I-4 200 HP 2.4L I-4 180 HP

    Transmission 6-spd Tiptronic w/OD 5-spd auto w/OD

    Fuel Economy City 18.0 mpg 21.0 mpg

    Fuel Economy Highway 24.0 mpg 27.0 mpg

    Bumper to Bumper Warranty (months/miles) 36/36,000 36/36,000

    6-spd Tiptronic w/OD 5-spd auto w/OD

    Battery 480 amp with run down protection, 410 amp

    Axle Ratio 3.69 4.50

    Fuel Type premium unleaded regular unleaded

    Fuel Tank 16.8 gal. 15.3 gal.

    Exhaust stainless steel with chrome tailpipe finish stainless steel

    Drive Type full-time 4MOTION all wheel RealTime automatic full-time four-wheel

    Locking Hub Control permanent permanent

    Traction Control ABS & driveline ABS & driveline

    Seating Capacity 5 5

    Front Seat Type bucket bucket

    Heated Front Seats driver and front passenger heated-cushion heated- driver and front passenger heated-cushion, driver

    Front Headrests adjustable adjustable

    Front Armrests center driver and passenger,

    Front Driver Seat Direction Controls (8-way power) (8-way power)

    Front Passenger Seat Direction Controls 6-way 4-way

    Rear Seats 60-40 split-bench 60-40 split-bench

    Rear Headrests adjustable adjustable

    Rear Armrests center with pass-thru center

    Memory driver seat N/A

    Seat Trim leather leather

    Door Trim leatherette N/A

    Headliner full cloth full cloth

    Floor Trim carpet carpet

    Floor Mats carpeted front & rear carpeted front & rear

    Dashboard Insert metal-look metal-look

    Gear Shift Knob Trim leather leather

    Sunroof Available:express open/close express open/close

    Vanity Mirrors dual illuminated dual illuminated

    Rearview Mirror auto-dimming day-night day-night

    Glove Box locking locking

    Dome Light fade fade

    Reading Lights front & rear front

    Floor Console full partial
    Overhead Console full with storage, mini with storage, conversation mirror
    Cup Holder front and rear front and rear
    Instrument Panel Storage covered bin covered bin
    Dashboard Storage dashboard storage N/A
    Seatback Storage 2 2
    Refrigerated Box glovebox N/A
    Door Bins dual dual
    Rear Door Bins rear door bins rear door bins
    Cargo Concealed Storage cargo concealed storage N/A
    Cargo Floor Trim carpeted carpeted
    Trunk Lid Trim plastic plastic
    Cargo Cover rigid rigid

    Looks like Tiguan is a "ME TOO" just 13 years too lat
  • gdocgdoc Posts: 22
    I have been a loyal Acura customer since 1992, with the exception of one bmw. I've had 7 acura/honda products. My acura was a 2006 acura tsx/nav. I must say, I have only positive things to say about my tsx experience. However, with a new 11 week old baby and the need for some more space I spent about 3 months researching and test driving every SUV/CUV. Reading reviews and watching youtube until my eyes were bleeding. I narrowed my choices down to Acura RDX, Lexus RX350,Nissan Murano, Audi Q5, Subaru Forester, VW Tiquan, BMW X3, Volvo XC60 and even ventured on the dark side looking at Ford Escape and GM Equinox. Since I had navigation on the TSX, this had to be part of the deal. I test drove every vehicle (some a few times). I'm fortunate to have many friends in the car business that let me steal keys from the dealerships and really drive these vehicles. Keep in mind I live in Toronto where we are no strangers to a lot of snow from Dec-March.

    I wanted something fun to drive, reasonable on gas, room for 4 and a baby stroller in the back and awd. So, here's an acura-aholic take.

    Acura RDX - Wonderwoman lost her shield and put it on the RDX. Quality truck, fast, met a lot of my want list, but the styling and poor fuel economy left it at the dealer - you have no idea how hard it was to leave acura, but my god, that new TL is gawd awful looking. It may drive great, but no car should take long to get use to.

    BMW X3 - ummmm 55k plus tax. I was born at night, but not last night! Nice truck to drive, but lease was $950, without all the options I wanted. Enough said.

    Audi Q5 - great truck and was first on my list. Nothing bad to say, except that the residual value was very low and leasing rates were terrible. Plus add navigation, sline package and audi drive select and you back at 55k. Sorry, 62 grand with tax. I'd rather walk. Base model in canada is 43k with no sunroof.

    Nissan Murano - 48k. Boring to drive for me and styling was like a floating egg for me. I'm sure it's a good vehicle, but you just know something is not right after a test drive. I would not put my 800 bucks a month on the table.

    VW tiquan - cute, good qaulity inside, heavy like a tank, no space in the back,so this was off the list. I think VW should have made it a bit larger and less bug looking. But, no doubt a good truck.

    Ford escape, equinox - would rather walk after test driving. Dealership staff was terrible and I felt like I was in 1982. From acura to this, was too far of a dive off the cliff.

    Lexus and Volvo - both polar opposites. Lexus rx350 was gorgeous. Like driving a quiet living room on the hwy. However, no road feel and felt very very soft. Great vehicle, just was not for me. Volvoxc60 had the worst navigation i've ever tried. Some weird toggle by the steering wheel. It was like every other volvo I've every test driven - bland drive with great seats. Heavy steering and my wife said it was like driving a tank (she's the, volvo was out).

    Subaru forester - I read the motor trend review, ajac and thought I should look at this. I've never stepped foot in a subaru product ever. I drove out of the parking lot in a dark grey xt limited with navigation and multimedia pachage. I called my wife and said "this &*^*ing" subaru is good. I went home and read every criticism about and praise about the truck and went back for a second test drive. Ok 4 gears instead of 5? I can't tell. In fact, I never really knew. Fast as the RDX I drove and I thought seats were comfortable and great suspension, handling. I went around a few pot holes and said...I think this is the car for me. I sat on it for another week, drove the RDX again and went back to Subaru and leased a 2010 Subaru forester XT with nav/multimedia. Absolutely freakishly great ride, fast and takes the corners and bumps very well. I leased this truck at 800 bucks above cost for 575 tax in with 1500 due at signing and I am loving this truck. I test drove a wrx sti and will get one of these in the summer. Service was excellent and I can't believe how great this drives. 4 speed automatic drives amazing and to me, the dash is very tightly finished and personally, this navigation is 10x better than my tsx had.

    For those that want a fun truck, with the best overall ride and amazing awd - I would not hesitate.

    new to the subaru family and I think I will be here for a very long time!
  • gdocgdoc Posts: 22
    Driving experience? You found the Tiquan more fun to drive than a Forester XT? That's interesting. Your experience is your experience and if you like the Tiguan, is a nice truck. However, for me it was the amazing power, great steering feel, navigation system and the much larger space that made the Forester a clear winner for my taste.
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Posts: 498
    Good Morning!

    I'm going to tell you my story. Some of you may remember me when I had the 2007 Mazda CX-7 and was a regular contributor to that forum on Edmunds. Sadly, I was involved in a nasty accident about 3 weeks ago. The CX-7 was totalled and I only had a very minor neck injury (strained muscle, pull). Up until then, I still very much enjoyed that ride, loved it, in fact and now wistfully remember what it was. When compared to other cars in it's day, it had strengths and weaknesses, but I still loved it!

    Anyway, had to go shopping. I've always relied on Consumer Reports to guide me. CR is usually quite accurate in their assessments. But I also read Road & Track, Car & Driver and Motortrend, for their views. I'm 6'4", so fit is crucial. Form, fit, value and good looks guide me, just as it does for many of you. Initially, I concentrated on Honda, Toyota, Nissan. I've never cared for Subaru - just didn't like it's looks. I've had Subaru before, but the last time I had one, it was a disaster on 4 wheels - left a permanent bad taste in my mouth.

    Up until recently, I never considered VW. VW reputation in terms of reliability, as reported by CR, has been dismal, until recently...The Tiguan is apparently starting to garner notice at CR and for the first time, elevated it to the "recommended" status. "The Tiguan straddles the line between the less-expensive Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4 and upscale models like the Acura RDX among small SUVs. Based on the Golf and Passat, the Tiguan did well in our tests. It is quiet, offers a roomy rear seat, and has excellent fit and finish. Handling is agile and secure, and the ride is comfortable" The only downs that CR noted was "premium fuel, price". But the SEL, fully loaded was still quite competitive in terms of cost. I got a really good deal from the dealer and the 3 years of no-cost maintenance, is icing on the cake.

    Well, Tiguan started looking pretty good to me. Went to the VW website, since I knew nothing about it. Starting to look better. Finally went to test drive it. I got hooked. Now, keep in mind I test drove the Rav-4, CRV, Santa Fe and oh yeah, Outback and Forrester. Yawn! The Tiguan is luxurious on the inside, to me, it smart-looking and offered features that are found in higher priced models, that none of the others offered.

    It's got plenty of punch for me (hell, if any of you drove the CX-7, you know all about that!). In fact, when I tromped on the accelerator, I had to hold on for dear life! Caught me off-guard! :P Very nimble. I absolutely love the panoramic moon roof! Sweet!

    CR says the RAV4 accelerates faster. Ok, good for it! I don't race cars, so who cares? Toyota, Honda, Subaru, Nissan, Hyundai all make quality products. I've owned all at one time or another! I can't agree more, but as of today, IMHO, the Tiguan goes one better.

  • cs2ics2i Posts: 9
    hey thanks for your timely post. sorry to hear about your CX7 though.

    we are coming out of a 2007 CX7 lease, and want to go for something different. i did stop by the Mazda dealer and check out the new CX7, but the navigation (which we feel is now a crutch rather than a luxury as it was 3 yrs ago) now is a small 3" screen way up in the dash. i like the engine, plenty of acceleration for us non-racers, but why not play the field. it is a deal though.

    right now i am between the Tiguan and want to still test drive the Outback (its looks don't bother me at all). what i can't justify is the Tiguan SEL price tag. i like the sunroof (we had a Mini and loved its sunroof, we never opened the CX7 sunroof), and wish we could do the leather- although the cloth looks/feels nicer than most. with the new sign then drive program i wonder what the leases will be like? the Tuguan cargo room does seem smaller, but passenger compartment seems for acceleration and handling, i did not get a good impression, since the dealer i went with took me out only on side roads

    the CRV never interested me, as the engine was pretty dismal. i've also driven the Murano, and with the CVT the dealer compared it to the RX rather than the FX35, which is a monster of a SUV (one can dream....). Rogue- forget about it.

    any other opinions on car options or Trim packages for the TIguan?

    thanks, cs
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Posts: 498
    First thing I noticed is that the Tiguan has a lot more acceleration than the CX-7 and turbo lag is almost none existant. Tiguan is smaller than the 7 and has less cargo space. BUT...I was amazed at the interior passenger room between the 2. I'm tall, so a lot more headroom and legroom, front and rear.

    As for the trim, I like my creature comforts, so opted for the SEL and the panoramic moon roof. Shop through the web and get quotes. I probably saved $2k just doing that and then I started haggling. Make the dealer fight for your wallet. Timing is good right now, since everyone knows the auto industry is struggling. It's a buyer's market right now. As far as choosing between the Tiguan and the Outback, go with your gut instinct. Price, features, availability, reliability. For me, if something catches my eye and it's one of those "I've got to have that!" then my wallet comes out. That's why I chose the CX-7 when it was first introduced 3 years ago. It's styling and features screamed "Buy me!" :P ;)

  • The Tiguan cost $5000 more than a comparable CR-V. You do get a more powerful engine and more sophisticated transmission, but you give up fuel economy and reliablity and maintenance costs.

    As for interior quality. I sat in a couple of Tiguans with cloth interior and was suprised that the poor quality of meterials in a $30k+ vehicle.

    The CR-V is also mush roomier, has fewer blind spots and a much larger cargo area.

    The CR-V doesn't pretend to be a perfomance SUV. It's a practicle, economical compact SUV with adequate power, lots of room a good ride and good fuel economy.

    Just like all VW's the Tiguan is more of a niche vehcile. Don't get me wrong, I almost bought a Jetta TDI sportwagen but the nearest VW dealer is 100 miles away and VW's don;t have the best reputation or statistical data in terms of reliability.
  • kr5kr5 Posts: 3
    Thanks to everyone who responded to my original post back in February asking for advice on choosing a Forester, CV-R or Tiguan. For some reason, Edmunds started to send me responses to my post only in the past few weeks.

    Anyway, I'm most impressed with the technological saavy, not to mention the feisty attitude, of those of you who offered an opinion on the relative merits of these vehicles. I finally made a decision and bit the bullet in May and bought --- drum roll, please --- the Subaru Forester.

    My take on this car was pretty much expressed by gdoc in his/her post, so I won't get into a lot of gushy detail here. Suffice it to say that the Forester's looks, performance and quality impressed me more than the CV-R's, and offered a bit more exclusivity than the CV-R, which seems to be the car of choice for young Moms everywhere (I'm a middle-aged guy) and looks a bit dated to me.

    I owned a Honda Prelude years ago, and found this brand to be very trustworthy, so it was a pretty close call between the CV-R and the Forester. In fact, I nearly bought a CV-R in 2003, when I bought my first Forester. The new Forester just looks better to me. The CV-R looks like a rolling egg, and the Tiguan looks like a gym-going Rabbit. Purely subjective, I know.

    The Tiguan's superb handling nearly turned my head, but I've been burned too much by VW (see my February post) to trust this brand any time in the near future. In any case, I'm not sure whether handling and performance trumps reliability and functionality in this type of vehicle. I mean, if sport car-like handling and high-tech performance are important, why not just buy a CC or Jetta or a Jetta wagon if you need the cargo space? The cost of the Tiguan exceeded the Forester (I bought a loaded 2.5X Limited with VDC) by over $5000, and the Tiguan requires premium fuel. For a CUV? Really? Case closed!
  • kr5kr5 Posts: 3
    Just noticed I wrote "CV-R" instead of "CR-V" throughout my post. I must have auto-dyslexia synsdrome. Have mercy, motorheads!
  • Yes you would, and yes they are cheap cars with cheap components made to be sold as a bargain last resort cars for people who's only concern is getting from A to B with 0 enjoyment or luxury factor.

    VW market share is smaller than Honda's, thats true, and same goes for BMWs market share and same for Acura's market share and same for all luxury cars market shares, that doesn't prove nor disapprove anything. your market share logic is flawed by definition.
    in simpler words : market share is NOT directly proportional to quality.

    Nop ! besides the fact of being racist, i don't see how your comment is related to quality, VWs are not made in Mexico (new beetle and Jetta are the only 2 models made at a Mexico Plant), you have either been misinformed or are actively lying as a last resort to support your theory.

    If you have been misinformed, then as i advised you before, you should watch TV commercial with a better critical eye and obviously shouldn't believe everything they tell you on TV, and in case you are actively making up stories and stating half facts, aka lying, then there is no point in keeping arguing with you because it is clear that you have no more material to bring to the table, and that is why you are getting creative on the subject.
    and for your own information, there is (again) no proven study that relates a car birth place and its quality, claiming that car made in Ohio is better than a car made in southern California is ridiculous.

    i don't think there is a need to discuss the "dog poop" theory of yours because it is... well.. stinky.

    the last thing is the feature by feature comparison of the CR-V vs Tiguan, you somehow jumped all the features that are on Tiguan and nowhere to be found on any CR-V model (like auto folding mirrors and panoramic roof), that is actually kind of pathetic, but i believe it makes you feel more comfortable. furthermore, that doesn't show the cheap make of the CR-V, you have to get into one to experience the plastic-ish and fake like leather design, the stupidly weak engine and the noisy ride...

    as for myself, i never claimed, said or communicated that i was or i am an expert of any kind, but i believe that you let your imagination loose again and assumed that, the same way as you assumed many wrong things related to this subject.

    i suggest you assume less, post less and read more.
    make your opinion based on real facts not based on half facts and banal commercials.
  • Better mileage, more room, better interior materials in hte most popular mid trim levels and $5000 less.

    These aren't opinons, they are facts.

    I'm not saying that the Tiguan is a bad vehcile. I'm sure it's great on the road, but it's not nearly as good of a value for most buyers. For many, it's just too small.
  • You cant fairly compare performance when one vehcile gets 18/24mpg and the other gets 21/27 (comparing 2010 AWD models). The 2 just don't compare directly because one is designed as an practicle compact CUV. The other is designed more for performance.

    The difference in cargo room and rear seat room is a pretty wide gap. It's like comparing a Civic Si to an Accord 4cyl and complaining that the Accord is too slow. They simply have different design goals.
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,803
    the last thing is the feature by feature comparison of the CR-V vs Tiguan, you somehow jumped all the features that are on Tiguan and nowhere to be found on any CR-V model (like auto folding mirrors and panoramic roof), that is actually kind of pathetic, but i believe it makes you feel more comfortable. furthermore, that doesn't show the cheap make of the CR-V, you have to get into one to experience the plastic-ish and fake like leather design, the stupidly weak engine and the noisy ride...

    Actually, I listed all the OPTIONAL features, but Edmunds limits the length of posts. But, if you add the OPTIONAL features that you boast about, it adds another $5000 to the already inflated price of Jetta with high clearance. Now, we have a $10,000 gap between the vehicles in comparison.

    Is $10,000 worth the 20 HP boost in power? NO!!!!
    Is $10,000 worth the electric folding mirrors? NO!!!!
    Is $10,000 worth the panoramic sunroof? NOOO!!!! I barely use mine, why would I want two sunroovs? And how often do you lay on your back in the car to enjoy the sunroof, let alone 2 of them (one is fixed anyway)?
    Is $10,000 worth the PERCIEVED luxury factor? Not in my book!!!!

    What the $10,000 more will buy you is more often visits to the dealership during the warranty, and more frequent out of pocket repairs.

    Besides, if I wanted to, I can add eletric folding mirrors to my CR-V for about $100 in parts. That is the beauty of standardized global platform. I wanted heated mirrors, which were not available on the EX, so, I just bought replacement glass from the SE, and plugged them in. Took me less than an hour to add a feature I wanted, without having to pay for the features I did not care about.

    You may call me racist, or liar, but the fact remains, country of assembly AFFECTS the quality of the product.

    The work ethics vary from culture to culture, and that is a FACT! Work ethic in Japan is different than US, which is different than in Mexico, which is different from Germany. No matter how much you candy coat the subject to be politically correct, the fact still remains.

    Given the choices, I will buy a product made in the USA or Japan, over same product made in Mexico, China. Call me racist, but it is my money, and I want a product that will not fail on me.
  • godeacsgodeacs Posts: 481
    You are not alone! I live in Texas and I wouldn't trust anything made/assembled "south of the border"..... :(
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Posts: 498
    Not trying to pick on the CR-V, but here's a goody: "Nineteen cars and 8 SUVs earn the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's Top Safety Pick award for 2010 For the first time, good performance in a roof strength test to measure protection in a rollover is required to win. " The 2010 Tiguan and Forester are in this group, but CR-V is NOT !!! So, seems CR-V may get top marks in quality, etc, but you're risking your life, if you buy one.

    So if better gas milage is important, pick the CR-V; if you really want off-road capability, pick the CR-V; if you want more storage space, pick the CR-V; and if you want more horsepower and a more faster engine, more torque, pick the CR-V. But if you want a really safe vehicle, that protects your loved ones, go with an alternative.

    And Mr. CR-V, if you really want to trash me and carlitos for our pinions, then go ahead. I've already made my choice and absolutely love it! The CR-V just doesn't measure up where it REALLY matters. :P

  • To say your "risking your life" is a little extreme and misguided. Its' like saying that all Qb's in the NFL that can't run the 40 under a certian time are worthless. No, because quickness is only 1 aspect to their performance and not the most critical.

    The reason the CR-V was not awarded top safety pick was because of a new test added this year involving a roof strength test. Its' a static test, not a dynamic real world test. The SUV's that passed were more "blocky" or smaller, making the strength of the roof proportionally stronger. In most all roll-overs however, the vehicle does not land squarely on the roof or with a force greater than it's weight. I challenge to validity of the test in terms of it's relevance ot real world crashes. If there was data that showed that occupants of CR-V suffered a greater frequency of injuries, then I would support the test. I do not believe there is any data to support that.

    I suspect those hat did well in th tests did so out of luck or because of a more "boxy" design, not because they intentionally designed the vehcile with this test in mind.

    It's possible that you could design a vehcile that passes this test, but add less desirable traits such as blindspots and a higher center of gravity, making an accident more likely.

    Does Honda need to adress this? I think so. On the next redesign, I suspect they will incorporate additional roof supports or a modified design.

    SO are the Tiguan and Forester safer... yes... if you are in a rollover accident in which the vehcile becomes airborne and lands with most all of it's weight on the roof. This is probably the lowest percentage type of collison there is and is the liekly the least likely cause of death or injury to occupants. Howeve,r it was likely pursued, because it's the last area of vehcile desing that has not been specifically addressed. I think they shoud have announced thsi new test 304 years in advance and given MFG's an opportunity ot chance their designs rathe than spirng it on the industry so that only by sheer luck 2 of a dozen vehciels pass.
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,803
    I agree with motoguy and it is shown in the data.

    Honda Element, which is the same as CR-V, but with more boxed designed passed the new test.

    And Mr. CR-V, if you really want to trash me and carlitos for our pinions, then go ahead. I've already made my choice and absolutely love it! The CR-V just doesn't measure up where it REALLY matters.

    I only trash blatant lies and exaggerations. You provided test results to support your claims. :P

    However, I do wonder....

    You bought the Tiguan on October 22nd, yet the IHHS report was not released until November 18th. Unless you are able to predict the future, there is no way that you could have assessed that the Tiguan's A, B, and C pillars are able to withstand the 3.25x of its own weight versus the CR-V's 2.5X its own weight.

    So, did you really base your choice on the have yet to be released safety report?

    Let's be honest....

    You are just trying to justify spending $10,000 more for the same econobox station wagon. :surprise:

    If you do have the ability to see into the future, I would like your top 10 stock picks, and lottery winning numbers for the next powerball.

    Thank you.
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Posts: 498
    First of all, according to iihs website, the model tested was the 2009 Tiguan. In the small SUV class, the Tiguan is top of the list and received "Good" in rollover test with a strength to weight ratio of 5.82 at a curb weight of 3665 lbs.

    The Element also did well, 2003 - 2010 models, received "Good" in rollover test with a strength to weight ratio of 4.31 at a curb weight of 3633 lbs.

    Notice the similarity in curb weight but substantial difference in roof strength.

    Now, for the CR-V, 2007-2010 models. It received a "Marginal" score, with a strength to weight ratio of 2.80 at a curb weight of 3469 lbs.

    All 3 are pretty close in weight but the important number, strength to weight, is the important number here.

    Yikes! You just stated that the CR-V is the same as the Element, yet look at the numbers. The strength to weight ratio of 2.80 is pretty sad. How can you compare the Element to CR-V in that arena? And you're trying to tell us that the CR-V is prefereable to the Tiguan? Let's see, I, "joe-consumer" will choose a vehicle which only measures Marginal as opposed to a vehicle that scores "good"? What are you smoking?

    Yes, the Tiguan is more expensive, but I'm willing to spend more money for a more substantially safe vehicle.

    And oh by the way, let's put both vehicles in a parking lot and have a panel of experts compare side-by-side, to see which is constructed better. Fit, materials, workmanship, features, specs, performance, and safety.

    What's your next argument?

  • I don't see how a STW of 2.8 is sad. It exceeds the federal requirements of 1.5 by almost 2 times. IIHS looks at statistics and found that a magic number of 4.0 could possibly reduced injury rates. So they decided that was the number to use. An acceptable mark is 3.25, which the CR-V was very close to.

    Don't get me wrong, the Tiguan according the IIHS stest, is very well designed. It's a great platform, I like VW's. But like the Rogue, it was too small. And ultimately too expensive for comparable trim levels and features. The very good engine and chassis carried at $5000 premium. With that price and level of fuel economy, I'll start shopping much a more capable Murano or a Higlander.

    You can't really compare the 2 fairly side by side because the Tiguan, based on it's size and interior dimensions should be less expensive. But it comes with a chassi and engine more comparable ot vehcile 1 class above. So for it's price, I would expect better interior materials and fit & finish.
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,803
    whn I test drove the Element, I could feel how top heavy it was. So, with even higher roof strength, I can only imagine how much more top heavy Tiguan is.

    Maybe it is so top heavy is that it is more prone to roll over than the CR-V and hence VW had to put a stronger roof on it?

    We all know what happened when "Joe-Consumer" was after safer and safer vehicle... we had the SUV wars of the late 90's and early 2000's, with the gargantuan SUV's clogging the roadways.

    So, if you were really after the safest vehicle for your self and your family, you would have bought an 80,000 lbs Greyhound bus. Because there should be no limit to guarantee the safety... In liu of Greyhound bus, may I suggest a Mack truck, or a Bradley Assault vehicle? The last one comes with armor to protect against rogue shopping carts at the mall.

    Stop trying to convince your self as to why you paid $10,000 more. You had no clue that Tiguan had strogner roof than the CR-V when you bought it. The report was not out, yet!

    And, yes, CR-V and the Element are the same car in different skin. The vertical design of the same pillars is what yielded higher roof strength for the Element than the CR-V.

    I also wonder if the vertical forces in the roll over collision ever exceed the 2x the vehicle weight. Is there any data on that? The excessive roof strength would only matter if something was dropped on it, like a piano falling from the 20th floor, or a bridge falling on the car.

    As to the experts making descisions, I think they have spoken when they compared the vehicles in any Small SUV comparo. Tiguan, not matter how nice it may be, does not justify what VW charges for it.
Sign In or Register to comment.