Howdy, Stranger!

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





Crossover SUV Comparison

1231232233234236

Comments

  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,554
    edited May 2013
    The recent thread is about the new RAV4 vs all the rest. I haven't spotted one in the wild yet myself.

    Interestingly, you can still get the 2012 model if you want - just no 4 cylinder, much less the V6. It's the base for the electric version with a Tesla powertrain. I bet few people have spotted one of those in in the wild.

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,565
    Boy, talk about an overreaction to my posts. As a matter of fact, a small crossover SUV may be on my list to replace my Taurus in the future.

    I was just posting items that I thought Toyota missed the boat on. Note: I did not complain about handling, braking, ride, noise, which I thought were in general very good on the RAV4. I only posted items I did not particularly like that would apply to anyone buying any vehicle.

    As far as wallowing boat, my Taurus is far from that, and while our Grand Caravan is a smooth rider, neither have ever beem intended for off road use.

    I would surmise very few people would seriously consider a RAV4 useful for off rugged off road use either, however.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,554
    edited May 2013
    It's really too bad it's hard to rent a lot of new cars - most don't seem to make it to the rental fleets and not many dealers will let you take a demo home overnight. Kind of surprising that you wound up in a RAV4 - I'm guessing you rented in Vegas which has a wider variety of cars (and exotics) than most places?

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Way too much airflow into the vehicle when everything was turned off.

    If you set the ventilation to recirculate it should alleviate that. Most cars flow-through vent when left on fresh-air at highway speed.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,565
    Actually rented in Reno and returned at Las Vegas. Reserved the car months in advance and got a really good deal. I reserved to get a mid size sedan (Fusion, Camry, Malibu etc. size} Deske agent tried to put us in a Spark but I protested based on what I had reserved. Finally he hemmed and hawed and put us in the Rav4.
  • kipkkipk Posts: 1,576
    You are the one that introduced the Taurus and Mini Van into the conversation.

    I did not, say and am not speaking of "RUGGED" off road use.

    A while back we attended a huge arts and crafts festival. We had to park in a grassy field in a slight hill, so there were terraces. The sedans were scraping as they went over them. Most SUVs didn't. To add insult to injury it drizzled rain for a few minutes while we were there, and the grass on the parking field became slick. Nothing "RUGGED" about that, but many sedans with their low plush ride couldn't deal with the terraces and slick grass. Our '03 CR-V 4wd was parked on the lowest part of the field and came out without any problem.
    I don't even know if it ever engaged the rear wheels to drive, as it is all totally automatic.

    That type of scenario would also apply to snow. Low slung vehicles that necessarily lean (wallow) in corners resulting from soft suspension can cause serious problems in snow conditions. Of course if you wish to spend a ton of money there are some cars that ride great and go around corners flat.

    However there must be some reason that you rented a 4WD and possibly the same reason there may be a small SUV to replace the Taurus in your mind.
    And yes, unless it is an SHO, it leans a great deal in corners when compared to a stiffer sprung vehicle.

    I agree with "thegraduate" put the control in "Recirculate" and that will likely stop outside air from coming through the vents. :)

    Unless you get an upscale model of any SUV, the seat may not be adjustable to your liking. SUVs, by design, have a higher center of gravity than a passenger sedan, resulting from more ground clearance. So there will be more felt motion. They also ride stiffer as most folks, that either have them or have spent some time in them, know.

    Good luck with your search!

    Kip
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,565
    edited May 2013
    I did not "introduce the Taurus and minivan" into this conversation. I only provided that information as background information about myself.

    And, once again you will note that I never complained about the Rav4's handling or ride characteristics, which I thought were acceptable.

    My critique about the Rav4's shortcomings could apply to nearly any vehicle as they were mostly seat comfort and ergonomics related, not vehicle category related.

    I do take issue with your statement about handling of non SHO tauri of my car's generation. My Taurus does not lean considerably in any turns. It is much more stable, even to the point of providing a stiffer ride than most sedans, which is one reason I bought it in the first place.
  • toomanyfumestoomanyfumes S.E. Wisconsin Posts: 904
    Madison's a cool town, I 'm south of of Milwaukee but try to get over there a couple times a year. I really like the hatch on our Outlander, with the top part swinging up, and the bottom flips down, you can use it for a seat, or longer cargo. Not digging the looks of the new Outlander, I'd like to keep our '07 for winter use for me, and get the wife something else. I drove a new Escape, pretty nice but a little tight I rear seat room. I might check out the new Rav4, but we may go with something a little bigger like an Edge.
  • fushigifushigi Posts: 1,248
    Not digging the looks of the new Outlander..

    Seems like most automakers are styling for the "Sport" in SUV while Mitsu is stepping back & going more for the "Utility".

    I'm also not super fond of the new styling but I can live with it as long as the rest of the vehicle meets or exceeds my expectations. I'm looking at the PHEV version.

    Though it'll probably be a few years before I buy as my '10 Outlander GT has yet to roll 30K miles.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,911
    Comparing the same vehicle, but different generations?
    We have '04, '09, and '13 Escapes.
    All are pretty much top of the line models, either Limited or Titanium.

    Starting out with the '04, it has about 110k on it. 4WD, 200 hp 3.0 V6, Leather heated front seats, power moon roof, upgraded sound system.
    Noisy on the highway, but tracks very well. Pretty trouble free, one wheel bearing (replaced under warranty), a rear parking sensor replaced under warranty, and air bag light has flashed a couple of times. First time fixed under warranty, second time both harnesses under the front seats were replaced for around $300.
    Has a slight oil leak, dealer wants $900 to fix.
    Original Continental tires were horrible (16 inch), and replaced at 25k with Goodyear triple treads, much better.
    Front rotors/pads replaced @ 50k, still original rear drums.
    Overall fuel mileage a bit over 19.

    '09 is also a Limited model. About 60k on it. AWD, 240 hp 3.0.V6, Leather heated front seats, power moon roof, upgraded sound system and factory NAV/SYNC.
    'Leather' seems to be of softer quality than '04. Both have held up well.
    Left front half shaft leak fixed under warranty.
    Still on the original Michelin tires with plenty of tread left.
    Overall quieter than the '04, but not quiet.
    Front brake pads replaced @55k and rear drums still original.
    Overall fuel miles about 21.5.

    '13 Titanium has just over 7k on it. AWD, 230+ hp 2.0 I4. It has pretty much everything including self parking. 1 oil change/tire rotation so far.
    NVH is much improved from the other 2, even thought is has 19 inch Continental tires.
    Mileage is a tick higher than the '09 despite no long trips.
    That will change over the summer.
    The previous 2 models are more space efficient due to their boxy shape, but can't compete in the tech or refinement. Once we take a road trip, the mileage will be better with the '13, too.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I thought you sold your late model Explorer, was it a trade?

    How's the 2l before boost kicks in? Is it still responsive enough? I thought that engine didn't come with AWD? :confuse:

    Sorry for all the questions. My buddy here at work got a 3.7l V6 model, traded a Range Rover Sport for it (too $$$ operating costs).
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,911
    My wife drives the Escape. I traded the '11 Explorer for a Fusion. Both have the 2.0 ecoboost.
    My wife thinks it's down a little low end power from the 3.0 V6 in the '09.
    Power in both seem more than adequate. I probably would have been ok with the 1.6, but I wanted all the toys, or at least most of them.
    I still have the '02 Explorer.
  • toomanyfumestoomanyfumes S.E. Wisconsin Posts: 904
    I drove an Escape with the 2.0 ecoboost. Didn't have the low end torque of our V6 Outlander but It revved quickly and smooth with no noticeable turbo lag. Handled and rode nice, too. Steering reminded me of my Dad's 2012 Focus, a compact car I really like.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    We seem to be going in that direction, so I expect more small turbos in many segments.
  • fushigifushigi Posts: 1,248
    My '10 Outlander GT AWD V6 is EPA rated 17/24. For 2013 the AWD V6 GT is 19/25 with no major redesign. I'm guessing it's engine & trans programming as weight is about the same and engine size & power and trans # of gears is unchanged.

    Funny, though, the '13 Santa Fe Sport (new name as the Veracruz is now the regular Santa Fe) with the 2.0T only gets 19/24 in AWD guise. And it's 50 pounds lighter than the Outlander.

    So small turbo isn't always better.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 30,443
    Our 2011 X3 is rated at 19/25.. 230 HP and 8-speed automatic

    MODERATOR
    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    CR was saying the same thing, the smaller turbos seem to fool the EPA in most cases, but the real world numbers aren't always as good as you'd think.

    The turbo makes more power in your example, but is not as linear in the delivery of that power.

    My NC Miata has a 2l engine and rumors have the ND getting a 1.3-1.4l turbo. Not sure how I feel about that. It just wouldn't be nearly as responsive.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I'd pick the straight-6, too. The 2.0T may be more fuel efficient but it's rough, and the stop/start features in particular needs a lot of refining. This was on a 3 series sedan, FWIW.

    I'm sure they'll refine it in the next year or two. It needs it, though.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 30,443
    Starting with 2013 model, the 2.0 Turbo is standard.... I'm glad we have the straight-6..

    MODERATOR
    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • toomanyfumestoomanyfumes S.E. Wisconsin Posts: 904
    I was reading about the '14 Outlander in a magazine, and it looks like they will still offer the GT model with the 3.0 V6. That could be the deciding factor in purchasing another, we really like that drivetrain.
  • fushigifushigi Posts: 1,248
    I like it as well, and since the '14 Outlander has shed some weight fuel econ should be even more improved. Numbers haven't been published that I've seen but I'd expect 20/26 at a minimum.

    That said, the PHEV model is what I'll be tracking. The Chicago area consistently has some of the most expensive gas in the country while also having some of the cheaper electricity rates.
  • fushigifushigi Posts: 1,248
    Kudos to the Subaru Forester & Mitsubishi Outlander Sport.

    For the Escape, Patriot, Encore, Sportage, Tucson, Wrangler, Rogue, CX-5, Tiguan and CR-V, you have some work to do.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/business/subaru-only-cuv-score-good-crash-test-1C9951241

    Personally, I'm glad that IIHS continues to make crash testing more difficult to pass. In the event I'm in an accident, my car's job is to sacrifice itself to protect me & my loved ones.

    That the Subie & Mitsu both weigh around 3300 pounds with AWD means that the added safety isn't coming with added weight (the AWD Rogue is almost 3500 pounds).
  • I'm considering one of these two cars as my next purchase. I currently drive a 2001 Volvo S80, which I purchased used in 2005. At the time it had about 40,000 miles on it, and now it has 170,000. I have been really happy with the car overall, however it's starting to show it's age on the inside (plastic parts starting to break, leather badly worn on the driver's seat). I love the comfort of the car, especially the seats.

    I did not find the car overly expensive to maintain. Yes, there are some issues, and not as inexpensive as my old Toyota Corolla, but overall the satisfaction rate has been pretty high.

    I have really been interested in Audi for a while, and I'm drawn to the Q5.

    Can anyone give me some insight into Audi?
    I hear they have a lot of issues, but I'm wondering how true that really is. If I go with the Audi, how often can I expect to be at the dealership with an issue: once per year? every 6 months? Once per month? Overall, what should I budget for repairs per year?

    Whichever one I go with, I am planning on buying used (two to three years).

    Your advise is appreciated!
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,554

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • jeffmcjeffmc Posts: 1,742
    edited July 2013
    A good site for looking at specific issues is truedelta.com. You can look at specific reports from individual Q5 owners to see not just overall reliability, but also what types of issues are most common for the various years. I know Consumer Reports had some serious things to say about the Q5, but truedelta may be able to nail down more specifics on any issues. If reliability is a concern, how about a Lexus RX? An upper-trim Subaru Outback may be a solidly reliable choice that could save you a few dollars as well... it's one of the safest vehicles on the road, and top-of-the-line models have quite a few features and good driving dynamics. Here's a link to Q5 reliability on truedelta: http://www.truedelta.com/Audi-Q5/reliability-874
    You do have to join to see complete in-depth data, but there's no fee, all they ask is that you reply to their quarterly e-mail about reliability of your own vehicle. Happy hunting! :)
  • fushigifushigi Posts: 1,248
    Reading the comparo makes me happy to stay with Mitsubishi.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,911
    Edmunds took their CX-5 on a long trip and got a bit over 24 mpg.

    Out west trip
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 15,397
    my nephew has a 1 YO RAV4 (with the spare tire). a 4 cyl. I asked him, and he said he gets about 26mpg on a highway run. I get 27-28 in our RDX. I am sure he beats us around town, but the combo of cylinder deactivation, tall gearing, and other tricks makes the V6 amazingly economical cruising.

    I drove down to the shore last week, and on a leg with a back highway stretch (so some lights) then a 75mph highway run, when I got off the TC was sitting at 30.4. Even backroad running after that and overall I got ~29 on that trip.

    2015 Hyundai Sonata 2.4i Limited Tech (mine), 2013 Acura RDX (wife's) and 2007 Volvo S40 (daughters college car)

  • I can read about performance, reliability and such till I'm blue in the face. My question is more of a shallow/cosmetic one. I loved my 98 CRV. I am finally in a position to buy something newer (possibly brand new) and all the compact SUVs have that sleek design making them looking like small minivan- soccer mom cars. I liked that my older CR-V had more of that truck look while still being a small car.

    Any thoughts on crossovers that look more Jeep-y for lack of a better fake word?
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,554
    The Forester has been "updated" but it's still somewhat boxy.

    You could go whole hog and get a Transit Connect. :-)

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

Sign In or Register to comment.