Howdy, Stranger!

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





Outlander vs CX-7 vs Tribeca

17891113

Comments

  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    That is not the only list of reliable vehicles by CR. There is more then a little half of a page of recommended vehicles.
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Posts: 498
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20481879/

    New, online article by MSNBC discusses the new ratings - stating that SUVs, as a class, are doing much better and garnering some nice ratings from the NHTSA. CX-7, CX-9, & Tribeca for both 2007 and 2008 garnered top scores in all tested categories.

    Strangely, the Outlander isn't even rated, for either year, for any category. Wonder why?

    :blush:
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    Do you think it's conspiracy?

    Well, because there are too many these testing organizations. The Outlander was not tested by NHTSA, but was tested for Frontal Offset Crash Test by IIHS. It have earned top rating in 6 out of 7 categories: Frontal Offset Crash Test by IIHS

    So it just happened that MSN wrote about NHTSA rating, and speaking of MSN, consumers/owners there gave the Outlander high rating of 9.5.
    CX-7 rated by owners at 9.1.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    >> That is not the only list of reliable vehicles by CR. There is more then a little half of a page of recommended vehicles.

    CR "Top Picks" (1st category) and "Recommended" (2nd category) are vehicles that have met requirements in three key areas:
    Road Testing, Safety Testing, and Reliability.
    In terms of reliability, the requirement is only "average or better in reliability".

    So CR Top Picks are not just about reliability.

    The Outlander has not completed full cycle of testing, so it can not be recommended yet.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    The Outlander has not completed full cycle of testing, so it can not be recommended yet.

    Nor the CX-7. They are both too new.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    and speaking of MSN, consumers/owners there gave the Outlander high rating of 9.5.
    CX-7 rated by owners at 9.1.


    I think you have posted that many times here.

    The site you are posting on, Edmunds, seems to think the CX-7 is quite dandy as well. In a recent comparo, they picked the CX-7 over the newly redesigned RAV-4(Top Pick by CR) and Hyundai Santa Fe in on and off road capability. Yes, I know the Outlander is not in this list to be compared. But, I thought I would share it anyway.
  • psychogunpsychogun Posts: 121
    I really feel that the CX-7 and Outlander are both terrific vehicles.
    As a consumer I am delighted to have the kind of diverse and high-caliber choices that we enjoy in this segment.
    Given that neither vehicle can really claim significant superiority over the other in ALL aspects, it really does come down to each individuals' needs and preferences.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    There is a new comparo out that pitted the Outlander, CR-V, RAV-4 and new Nissan Rogue against each other. The Outlander came is last, although is was the enthusiast's choice of the four. The RAV-4 came in first.

    On a side note, the CX-7 was pitted against the RAV-4 and Santa Fe earlier this year, and the CX-7 beat all three out. If the CX-7 were in this test, would it mean the CX-7 would come out on top? Who knows.
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 39,981

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • rcpaxrcpax Posts: 580
    Let the buyers decide. I don't really care about what the so called "car experts" say anymore. They made horrible errors in their Outlander long term reviews, so I don't think the Outlander would get a fair review. Just listen to what the OWNERS say. They own the vehicle, and most of the owners are honest to point out what they hate with the Outlander. And we have always been openly criticizing points where the vehicle can improve. But overall, Outlander owners are among the most satisfied of their vehicle purchase. Hundreds of owner reviews over at Yahoo, MSN, and even Edmunds will attest to that.Just do the math on the price and options on these vehicles. A wise buyer will figure which is the best buy. A thinking buyer will go by what his personal test drive experience than listening to people who get their salaries from the big car companies they review.As they say, don't bite the hand that feed you.

    The Mitsubishi Outlander is the fairest of the bunch (with shift paddles no less), but what a shameful excuse for a third-row seat, and the sluggish throttle response is a deal-breaker besides.

    So the uncomfortable third row seat is reason enough to dump the Outlander? It's an SUV not a minivan. 3rd row seat is meant as an optional space if the need arises to seat 7, that's why it's not a standard feature. And unless Edmund's has not been doing its assignment on getting the vehicle serviced, then they totally missed the point that Mitsubishi has solved the throttle hesitation issue since July. All you need is a reflash.

    And why was the Outlander the enthusiast's choice? Go figure that one out. It's last in Edmund's comparo but it's the enthusiast's choice? Something not quite adding up. I put my money on the enthusiasts choice.
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 39,981
    Just listen to what the OWNERS say.

    You know that Edmunds owns an Outlander right? :blush:

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • rcpaxrcpax Posts: 580
    I do. The special version that Edmund's said has heated second row seats. Yeah I know.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    You don't have to go any further than the Edmunds's own 2007 Outlander XLS Full-Test review to notice that the performance numbers on this comparo are flawed:

    2007 Outlander XLS Full Test

    Based on the numbers on this review, the Outlander bests all of them on track performance, except for the 0-60 mph (RAV4) and braking distance (Rogue). In both tests the Outlander is second best though.

    0-60 mph in 9.0 sec.; whom are they kidding?

    There are editors at Edmunds that repeat themselves like a broken record that the Outlander has torque steer and throttle hesitation, which is not quite true (I think one assessment belongs to the same reviewer that stated that the Outlander has heated rear seats, so not too much credibility there).

    Throttle hesitation: TSB available as of July 2007. Vehicles manufactured after this date are not affected.
    Torque steer: while in 2WD minor torque steer may be induced, in 4WD Auto mode it's a non-issue. Period. They can claim otherwise as much as they want, I drive an Outlander and I know how it behaves.

    Edmunds reviewers fail to mention or consider (or they don’t have the knowledge – so much for the “expert” title) that these issues are more severe in the RAV4 V6. However, they don’t subtract points for this significant flaw. You cannot really avoid the torque steer under harder acceleration and the 4WD system doesn’t help either. I think Toyota finally issued a TSB to alleviate the throttle hesitation issue. One thing that I bet not many people are aware of is that there were reports of accidents due to throttle hesitation and erratic acceleration/braking on the RAV4. It's all here NHTSA, just do a search for 2006/2007 RAV4 under Complaints. It's a long list, just look for the complaints involving a crash. Interesting, isn't it?

    If you ask me, I’ll stick with a car that people complain about wind noise and the radio display being washed out in direct light.
  • >> 0-60 mph in 9.0 sec.; whom are they kidding?

    They are kidding. The Motor Trend test of Dec 06 has 8.1 sec. for t Outlander. The Outlander also has better braking and handling test results vs. t RAV:

    Outlander XLS AWD
    0-60 mph 8.1 sec
    Braking, 60-0 mph 128 ft
    Lateral acceleration 0.78 g avg
    600-foot slalom 62.7 mph avg
    MT figure eight 28.3 sec @ 0.59 g avg

    RAV4 V6 Limited AWD
    0-60 MPH 6.4 sec
    Braking, 60-0 mph 130 ft
    Lateral acceleration 0.75 g avg
    600-foot slalom 60.6 mph avg
    MT figure eight 28.6 sec @ 0.59 g avg
  • I'm just wondering why the new Saturn Vue isn't in that lineup? I guess it didn't come out early enough.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    That's a rather large difference in acceleration, though.

    The average Joe will test drive these and can't feel the difference of 2 feet in braking from 60. They might be able to tell a handling advantage, but odds are they'll just floor it and fall for the Toyota's engine.

    Without the engine, the RAV4 sort of falls flat, but what I'm saying is the engine is probably the thing that will stand out the most on test drives.
  • maltbmaltb Posts: 3,572
    ...but what I'm saying is the engine is probably the thing that will stand out the most on test drives.

    Or the back end unless you are into big booty.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    :D

    He'd like it:

    image
  • The only really good thing about the RAV4 is the V6. It definitely feels faster than my Outlander.

    But everything else was better with the Outlander...exterior styling, interior styling, Nav, stereo, 6 speed, warranty, price.

    The Outlander has enough power to satisfy my needs, so I chose it over the RAV4.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Without the engine, the RAV4 sort of falls flat, but what I'm saying is the engine is probably the thing that will stand out the most on test drives.

    I could not agree with you more.
This discussion has been closed.