Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Outlander vs CX-7 vs Tribeca

1235

Comments

  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 129
    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 Member 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 Guest Posts: 52,454
    Here's the link:

    Comparison Test: 2007-2008 Compact Crossovers
  • rcpaxrcpax Member 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 Guest Posts: 52,454
    Just listen to what the OWNERS say.

    You know that Edmunds owns an Outlander right? :blush:
  • rcpaxrcpax Member Posts: 580
    I do. The special version that Edmund's said has heated second row seats. Yeah I know.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member 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.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> 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
  • morey000morey000 Member Posts: 384
    I'm just wondering why the new Saturn Vue isn't in that lineup? I guess it didn't come out early enough.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 72,587
    :D

    He'd like it:

    image
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Member Posts: 194
    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 Member 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.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> The average Joe will test drive these and can't feel the difference of 2 feet in braking from 60.

    2 feet will make a big difference in an average Joe's collision
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Hee hee, funny, but that's something for the insurance companies to worry about.

    It might affect safety is the stopping distances were a lot longer, but a 2ft variance is probably within the margin of error for that test, i.e. not a significant difference.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    It seems like many people, including myself, agree that the engine is the only thing that stands out in the RAV4. Is this enough to consider RAV4 the "benchmark" or "the best in class"? Personally, I don't think so.
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Member Posts: 498
    Before I bought the CX-7 and a Santa Fe, I had the 2004 RAV4. What I liked about it was that it was compact, rugged. A might mite, if you will. I drive on the streets in DC and it's a snap to zip in and around traffic and finding a parking spot can be problem, but not for the RAV4!

    Granted the swing gate can be a detriment, but you compensate for it and learn to live with it. I'll tell ya, I kind of appreciated the fact that the spare was mounted on the gate. Came in handy one cold dark stormy night when I had to change a flat. That sucker was real easy to dismount!

    Now, it's undergone a pretty good styling overhaul and it looks a lot better than the 2004! The only reason I didn't buy the new RAV4 was I think the styling of the CX-7 is a whole lot better!

    Vince.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Probably not, but again, the engine is probably the most visible item. It's the first thing that makes impression on a test drive.

    Test driver hops in, steps on the gas, "Wow, this thing is peppy". It makes you overlook the cheap-ish interior.

    Then they look at the price tag, and the MPG is on the same sticker. So they might justify paying a bit more telling themselves they'll make it up on gas mileage (they will make up a small amount compared to other V6s).

    You might say Toyota spent the money where it counts, or at least where the consumer would first notice it.

    I have the 2GR engine in my Sienna, and I have to say, the engine is a gem. 266hp makes even this two-ton van feel fast, and I got 30.6mpg on two differnet road trips.

    So my minivan did better than my MIATA did on the same trip, holy cow! :surprise:
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    What you said is true for the average Toyota buyer and maybe for the average car buyer; however the comparo we are commenting on is about ranking the vehicles against a set of given criteria, based on HARD DATA. The sales volume, resale value, brand prestige, perceived reliability and other subjective factors should not count at all and they are not included in the scoring system.

    We all know that the emotional component is a big part of the purchase decision and a third-party, OBJECTIVE evaluation is meant to take that emotion out of the equation. This is the reason why the SUBJECTIVE component in this evaluation should theoretically total 5% only (which is not true unfortunately).
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    So my minivan did better than my MIATA did on the same trip, holy cow!

    I bet you still like way better taking the same trip in your Miata than your Sienna. :)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Actually, it depends.

    For the first hour, I prefer the Miata. Then it starts feeling cramped and I get wind-burned (the top is ALWAYS down). :shades:

    Any longer than that, and I'll take the comfort of the Sienna.
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Member Posts: 458
    Well, OBJECTIVELY, that V-6 in the RAV out-accelerates everything else in its class, and most other CUVs.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    ...while averaging the best MPG, too.

    That's the clincher for a lot of folks, the 2GR engine is both powerful AND efficient.

    It's very, very easy to be ONE of those things.

    The 2GR is both at the same time. That's what is impressive about it. You can be quicker and spend less on gas, too, at the same time.

    It's a huge selling point.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    Well, OBJECTIVELY, that V-6 in the RAV out-accelerates everything else in its class, and most other CUVs.

    OBJECTIVELY, you are correct. The trouble is that OBJECTIVELY, the Outlander out-brake, out-slalom, out-handle the RAV4. Based on that, I would say the Outlander out-performs the RAV4.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    Sure, but OBJECTIVLY the engine, is the only a thing the RAV4 has going for it.

    OBJECTIVLY RAV4 has outdated 5-speed transmission, outdated AWD witch can lock all wheels only at up to 25 mph, lousy stereo, no navigation, no MP3 server, no Fast Key, no Bluetooth, no Xenons, inconvenient curbside loading, dull interior, basic warranty, and lower in class owner satisfaction ratings (yahoo, MSN, Edmunds).
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    the RAV out-accelerates everything else in its class, and most other CUVs.

    Ferrari vs. Small Ridiculously Overpowered Crossover SUV (keep reading - the RAV4 is in there :shades: )
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    Right, but this comparo is not about the selling points.
    The comparo is about which one is the best OVERALL package.
    Many buyers in this segment look for the bang for the buck aside from fuel economy.
    Which factor is more important depends on the buyer.

    On a side note, I think the RAV4 mostly sells because it's a Toyota, and then because of the exceptional V6. I would be curious to see how many RAV4 I4s and how many are V6s were sold. Anyone has any numbers? This would be a good indicator of what drives the RAV4 sales.
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Member Posts: 458
    Actually, the IMPORTANCE of all the features you list, is quite subjective. If people don't like xenons, or need an MP3 server, NAV, or whatever a "fast key" is, then the Outlander sucks wind. Kindof like it does accelerating onto a freeway, compared to a RAV4 V6...
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    Another list of excuses. Sure, if your car does not have all these features, then you don't need them. 20-30 years ago people used to say this kind of excuses about the lack of power windows and auto transmission.

    Outlander is a much better balanced car as a package, and it has more power vs. CRV and Rogue, and it has as much power as Lexus RX330 while it's equipped as well as RX350.
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Member Posts: 458
    Another broken-record response. Sure, if your car has these features, then everybody must want them, and that makes your car better.

    It's okay that the Outlander has more power than the CR-V. The Mitsu probably needs that power to carry around its 300 extra pounds.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    I guess 32.5% power increase (166hp vs. 220 hp) and 26.7% torque increase (161 vs. 204 lb. ft.) is enough to move aprox. 8.5% more mass (less than 300lb. more for a fully loaded Outlander) with power to spare.
    The Outlander is anything but underpowered.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The comparo is about which one is the best OVERALL package

    True, but this thread doesn't even list the RAV4, so there aren't any RAV4 owners here to defend their vehicle and list the things they like about it.

    Not really a fair fight, eh?

    I'm sure one of the first things a RAV4 owner might bring up is resale values, ALG gives the RAV4 a best-possible 5 stars, while the Outlander trails substantially with only 2:

    https://www.alg.com/deprratings.aspx

    I looked up Edmunds TCO (Limited AWD for both) and again the RAV4 costs less over 5 years, 55 cents per mile vs. 60 cents per mile on the Mitsu.

    I will say this - this makes a used Outlander appear to be a rather incredible bargain. :shades:
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> True, but this thread doesn't even list the RAV4, so there aren't any RAV4 owners here to defend their vehicle and list the things they like about it.
    Not really a fair fight, eh?

    I agree, but HOST is the one in the first place, who brought the comparo article here. This discussion is belong to that thread.


    >> I'm sure one of the first things a RAV4 owner might bring up is resale values, ALG gives the RAV4 a best-possible 5 stars, while the Outlander trails substantially with only 2:

    That rating is based on old RAV and 1st generation Outlander. We can only speculate, what the resale value would be for new RAV and new Outlander. Note, for instance, that the owner satisfaction ratings (MSN, Yahoo, Edmunds) dropped for the new RAV, but increased for the new Outlander.


    >> I will say this - this makes a used Outlander appear to be a rather incredible bargain.

    Sure, but even the new one, equipped as well as RX350, appear to be a rather incredible bargain.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Not really, ALG updates that list regularly. Those ratings are for current models.

    Lease companies actually use ALG ratings to come up with actual residual values.

    The reason this is important is that when those leases are up, these off-lease vehicles hit the used car market. If you sell yours, you will be competing with those same off-lease used vehicles. The Outlander will be priced lower.

    The numbers are very real-world applicable for this exact reason.

    Edmunds' TCO is also for the new models, not the old ones.

    Plus, the Outlander and RAV4 have been out for a while now, they're not exactly brand new.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Look again, the Saturn Outlook is already on there, and that's newer than the RAV4 or the Outlander.

    The list is current. The new Outlander is rated at just 2 stars. Off-lease vehicles will be cheap used, a bargain IMO as I stated earlier.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    There is not much resale going on for the new Outlander, all the cars out there are less then one year old, so there is no reliable resale data.

    The ALG web site specifically says that the ratings "based on 2006 model year vehicles".
  • rcpaxrcpax Member Posts: 580
    If they turn out cheaper as used, then the next buyer really wins. This vehicle is a champ, very good package overall. Perhaps then people will buy good value used Outlanders in greater numbers. It's already the best value when sold new, how much more when slightly used off-lease. I still have to see some figures though on owners who decide to buy it after lease. I bought mine for keeps so resale value don't bother me a bit.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Right, but lease companies are using these same numbers to calculate residuals on 2007 and pretty soon 2008 models.

    It's a bit optimistic to assume those will change dramatically, especially when the off-lease Outlanders hitting the used car market will be priced based on those residuals.

    Oddly enough, there was no 2006 Saturn Outlook. :D
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> Oddly enough, there was no 2006 Saturn Outlook.

    Right, there was no 2006 Saturn Outlook, which makes these ratings "odd", as you say yoursef, :-)
    .

    >> It's a bit optimistic to assume those will change dramatically, especially when the off-lease Outlanders hitting the used car market will be priced based on those residuals.

    Market demand in 2008-2012 for a particular car will define used car pricing, not some "odd" 2006 ratings.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    You must be a gambling man. ;)

    If your Outlander is totalled tomorrow, the insurance payout will be much smaller than it would be for a similarly priced (when new) RAV4.

    It's true right now. We don't have to wait until 2012.

    That may change if most Outlander owners are as happy as you seem to be.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    I know this discussion is in the wrong spot. There is another separate thread regarding this comparison, but wired enough, not too many RAV4 or CRV owners there either.

    I would not argue the resale value argument, which obviously is favorable to the RAV4 (in absolute value), but again, it shouldn't be a factor in the car magazines comparisons. The magazines should compare the actual cars, based on the “on-hand” data not market speculations, personal preference or other subjective factors. These types of assessments belong to the buyer.

    When I was shopping, I looked at the resale value projections and the purchase price on the Canadian market for the CRV, RAV4 and Outlander. I have to mention that the Canadian market is significantly different from the US market.
    The conclusion was that I would have had to pay in excess of $5,000 more for a RAV4 or a CRV to get the features I wanted in my car (some still not available at this price difference). I did not’t think that in 5+ years the higher resale value of the RAV4 or CRV would cover the initial purchase price difference.

    The truth is that the CRV wasn't really a contender due to the lack of a V6 option (aside from its ugly exterior and minivan dashboard - this is a personal opinion), but I still had it in my comparison, just to give me a full perspective. FYI: My evaluation also included the SantaFe and the CX7. I love the CX-7 (I have one in my diecast models collection :) ), but the engine was the major deal breaker for the type of vehicle I was looking for.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    That may change if most Outlander owners are as happy as you seem to be.

    If you judge by the owners’ posts on various Outlander forums, I think it's safe to say that over 90% of the Outlander owners are indeed happy with their cars so far.
    There were very few minor problems with the car for its first year in North America and Mitsubishi was very quick in addressing them. What's not to be happy about?
    Of course, it's still too early to rate its long-term reliability, but so far so good. Fingers crossed.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> You must be a gambling man. If your Outlander is totalled tomorrow, the insurance payout will be much smaller than it would be for a similarly priced (when new) RAV4.

    I would consider an event as gambling, when I have one chance for unfortunate event out of two, or in some cases out of 100 or so. The possibility of my car being totaled is based on very large assumption of yours and would not qualify as gambling. I mean do you consider driving as gambling? If your car would be totaled, quite likely you would not even know about it, or at least your would not care about a difference in your car "insurance payout". Fight for you life will be the only a fixation on your mind :-)
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles