Howdy, Stranger!

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





Howdy, Stranger!

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

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

2014 Nissan Rogue SL AWD Long-Term Road Test | Wrap-Up

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Posts: 10,059
edited February 2015 in Nissan
image2014 Nissan Rogue SL AWD Long-Term Road Test | Wrap-Up

Our Long-Term Test of the 2014 Nissan Rogue SL AWD is complete after one year and 21,000 miles.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • 7driver7driver Posts: 145
    Cripes, that's some steep depreciation compared to the CR-V and CX-5! And it even finished with fewer miles than the CR-V and CX-5. A *lot* fewer miles.
  • We just replaced our 7 year old, 150000 mile Armada with a competetive brand mid-sized SUV. One of the prinary reasons was that the new Pathfinder is plain fugly! This Rogue is what the current Pathfinder should look like. It's a shame about the depreciation, but honestly, most people keep their cars much longer than you guys do. I expect that a few years down the road things would even out.
  • bankerdannybankerdanny Posts: 1,021
    Do you work for a car company other than the brand you purchased zoomzoom? If not feel free to share what you bought with us.
  • would love a 2.0T all new engine in the Rogue. + 7 speed auto is all you need. PLEASEE + 2db quieter and I buy.
  • kshankarkshankar Posts: 175
    Nissan should just ditch their CVTs and put in a 7 speed or 8 speed automatic and update their engines as well. I guess funding for new products, engineering is going more towards Renault than Nissan. I had a 2010 Nissan Maxima that went through 2 CVTs by 14K miles.
    Never again!
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    CVTs are generally more fuel efficient though. Gotta meet CAFE.
  • g35bufg35buf Posts: 89
    That is some sucky mileage for this ancient 2.5 L powerplant...Why would I put up with a CVT and crappy mpg vs a CX-5, Tucson/Sportage or even a VW Tiguan with the 2.0T (gets a real world 23 mpg in mixed driving and I have V6 power and a smooth shifting real AT). Not surprised at the depreciation either...A CR-V or RAV4 will eliminate the depreciation part of the equation as well for the same or less inital outlay (with similar equipment)...In a nutshell, there are many, many better choices for a small CUV.
  • One year depreciation is a useless figure for most people. Also, the Rogue is now almost two years old.
    Regardless, you will pay far less for a comparably equipped Rogue than a RAV4 or CR-V. I tried five different dealers for each one. have a friend who purchased four Acuras because Hondas cost too much! Now drives a couple of Nissans.
    BTW, I have never paid Edmunds TMV for a new car and always do better on trade in.
    My 2014 SL with Premium Package averages 29 MPG and best has been 36. Daily have to climb some 6-8% grades and no problem at all. CVT does not make noise, search for gears or anything else. Near the end of hill, might kick in a little, but hardly noticable. No problems when took back roads in Smokey Mountains either. It mostly just purrs along-city, country, interstates, mountains, etc.
    When I accelerate hard, it has the slight roar you want to hear upon accelerating. My previous RAV4 made a lot of noise coming up the hills.
    I never notice any "gear" searching in any kind of traffic-never notice CVT at all actually.
    Most importantly, it is FAR quieter and FAR more comfortable than any of the competitors, especially the RAV4 and CR-V. It is roomier, much more practical and interior is amazing. Lots of gadgets and high tech stuff.
    Electronics are slower to respond than some others, but all vehicle electronics seem to have limitations of some kind now.
    Rogue is No. 1! Definitely need to seriously consider it if in marked for a small SUV. Would not get the third row though-move up to Murano if you need it.
  • Additional: Never have a problem with my phone connecting with the Rogue. Never have a problem with glare or reflections from dash, logos or anything else and both wife and I have sensitive eyes.
  • random_shotsrandom_shots Posts: 14
    edited March 2015
    7driver said:

    Cripes, that's some steep depreciation compared to the CR-V and CX-5! And it even finished with fewer miles than the CR-V and CX-5. A *lot* fewer miles.

    The depreciation amount is misleading. A Rogue can be had for 4K off MSRP which represent about 42% of the deprecation amount calculated by Edmunds. Had edmunds used a more realistic purchase price (like TrueCar) then the depreciation amount would have been much lower.

  • We absolutely LOVE our 2014 Nissan Rogue SL AWD, and think it to be superior to the CX-5 (and, I love Mazdas!), RAV-4 and CR-V. It's a shame you don't share our enthusiasm. But, ces't la vie: that's life with reviews/reviewers.

    We find our Rogue to behave and feel much more expensive than it really is. The interior is supremely comfortable, well-built and very luxurious, especially for the price. In our opinion, aside from the Tiguan, it has the nicest and most luxurious interior of all crossovers in its class. As noted in your review, the front seats are fantastic! They are the most comfortable front seats of any car we've ever owned or rented. The back seats are very comfortable and spacious, as well - the Rogue feels like a mid-sized crossover. Cargo space is very abundant, and the split-level configuration possibilities are super convenient. These reasons alone should be enough to rate the Rogue higher than its competition. After all, don't we spend ALL of our time INSIDE our vehicles?

    In addition, we find the ride to be very comfortable and smooth, the accelaration to be just as smooth and perfectly effective for a four-cylinder, AWD crossover, the handling to be safe, responsive and mildly sporty, and the braking to be smooth, consistent (learn something, Honda) and very effective. In addition, although beauty is in the eye of the beholder, we also find the Rogue to be the best-looking crossover in its class (the CX-5 placing second, and the Tiguan placing third). What's not to like?

    Sure, the fuel economy doesn't regularly add up to what its touted to be. Even so, as you noted in your review, and as we have experienced personally, one is well-capable of getting more than 400 highway miles on ONE tank of gas. Our best tank, so far, has been 33.7. That's pretty damned good for a relatively heavy, almost mid-sized, AWD crossover. Most reviewers and auto-enthusiasts might not like CVT transmissions and their behavior. But, this auto-enthusaist PREFERS them over regular automatics. After all, haven't automakers spent decades in trying to make auto trannies as smooth and fuel-efficient as possible, and here comes the CVT transmission that addresses those issues as it completely eliminates gear shifts altogether and improves fuel efficiency, yet still gets hated on? Makes no sense.

    A curious ommission in your - and others' - reviews on crossover, AWD vehicles is their performance in foul-weather, snow and light-duty off-roading - something these vehicles are all designed to conquer to a certain degree. Something else we LOVE about our Rogue is its awesome performance in the snow and icy hills of the Hudson Valley here in NY. The AWD Rogue always has its AWD system on and ready (anytime you accelarate, all four wheels go and, then, it switches to FWD - it's not just a "turn the back wheels on when slippage of the front ones is detected" kind of Honda-like system). It also feature an "AWD Lock" button that we love to use, in addition to Hill Descent Control. What? In an "economy" crossover? That's awesome! Yet, there's no mention of that or it's light off-road performance capabilities in your review. I can whole-heartedly say that the Rogue performs better than the CR-V out in the snow and foul weather (I pick on the CR-V since its the most popular crossover, and since it completely has gotten my AWD CR-V-owning mother stuck in the snow in a couple of situations where our Rogue has gotten out of immediately).

    In addition, why don't recent reviews, especially long-term ones, include things like stereo/audio performance? (Years ago, Edmunds used to include this feature in their reviews, which I loved!) I LOVE music and consider myself an audiophile. For me, and many others, if a vehicle has a crappy audio system, I wouldn't even consider buying the car! The Rogue SL comes with a SUPERB, especially for the price, Bose sound system (much better-sounding than the CX-5's and CR-V's systems). Nissan engineers these systems along with Bose and they take care of the one main gripe against Bose systems - adding much-needed base. The stereo sounds fantastic! Yet, there's no mention of that in your review. Also, we've NEVER had a problem pairing our Android phones to the Rogue's system, or using its AUX, Sattelite radio, AM/FM radio and CD player (on those extremely rare occassions - lol!). The only times it has ever given us slight hiccups has been with some of ours friends and family's Apple products. Maybe it's an Apple issue? :-/

    I thank you for the long-term review on the Rogue, and for allowing me to "vent" via my long missive. ;) I love Edmunds - its one of the very few sites I frequent on a DAILY basis, and I love our Rogue. And, I was very excited and kept up with your long-term review of it. I just wish more people would see the Rogue's awesome virtues, and that you guys would've been more enthusiastic and fair (I think a lot of the issues presented throughout the long-term review dealt more with personal preferences than with actual issues, and that some important factors were completely left out, i.e., foul-weather and sound performance, etc.) in your Rogue review. Just my humble opinion.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    edited March 2015
    I liked your point about CVTs @nissmazlover. Snowmachines have had them for decades and if you asked a snowmachiner (or snowmobiler, or whatever they call them in NY) if they wanted to have a 9 speed transmission in their sled, they'd think you were nuts.

    Please visit the Consumer Ratings and Reviews section and write a review too - oh, never mind, you did that last year. Thanks. ;)
  • @stever Haha! Yup, already have done my due diligence. ;) And, it's so true what you say about snow machines!
  • ejo1ejo1 Posts: 8
    I don't know what the dislike of a CVT is. In Europe in the late 50ties DAF (Doorne Automobiel Fabriek or as known in the English speaking world Dutch Automobile Factory used one in their cars with great success, used by Volvo (340) and later used in Volvo trucks. From a mechanical standpoint only a manual transmission is more efficient but the CVT runs the engine at it's peak of the power-band.
    Yes we thought back in Europe that it was a car for old folks because you didn't need to clutch and shift, but here in the US everybody likes AT's and kids don't even learn how to shift.
    I happened to own(past tense) a 2009 Rogue SL AWD which had the same 2.5L engine and CVT. I didn't mind and as I'm aspirited driver I loved my steering wheel paddle "shifters" which you could use as shifting without a clutch, which I used for quicker acceleration when needed as the car could be called sluggish.
    All points made by nissmalvr were true 5 years ago. Loved the comfort, fantastic Bose system, great interaction with my android and great voice recognition calling, 25-26 mpg average, could hit 30+mpg .
    The only reason I replaced the car was because I needed more towing capacity and ended up with another CVT car, Highlander Hibrid AWD
  • You should've gotten an SV with the third row.
  • carolinabobcarolinabob Posts: 576

    You should've gotten an SV with the third row.

    To whom are you responding.
    Why an SV?
  • For the longest, I’ve felt that the “A” rating you have given the CR-V is undeserved, as much as the “C” rating for the Rogue. The biased you guys are showing for Honda (and, seemingly, against Nissan) is really appalling. I've driven the 2016 CR-V Touring, and there is no way it is a better car than my 2-year-old 2014 Nissan Rogue SL. Even at 2 years old, the Rogue is WAY more comfortable, looks better inside and out, has a way higher-quality interior, and has a substantial, luxurious feel that the CRV completely lacks. As far as handling is concerned, they’re both pretty much equal. And, in my own research project, I've had other people drive both crossovers back-to-back and EACH and EVERY single one of them preferred the Rogue, hands down. Yet, you rate the Rogue a miserly "C", and the CRV an "A." Think I can't back up my claim of your biased reporting? Think again. Here are just a few examples:

    On your review of the '16 CR-V, you go on and on, RAVING about how the best thing about it is how practical, roomy and comfortable it is: "Everyday usability is the driving force behind the CR-V's interior design. The wide doors allow for easy ingress and egress, and head and legroom are ample for front and outboard rear passengers. A passenger sitting in the rear middle seat will also appreciate the lack of a protruding transmission tunnel that would otherwise necessitate an uncomfortable seating position. Farther back, the CR-V's cargo area is vast, with 37.2 cubic feet of space ready to swallow just about anything you want throw back there."

    1) The Rogue's doors open just as wide as the CRV and offers the same level of ease in ingress/egress, yet you rate the Rogue a B in that regard, and the CRV an A; 2) The Rogue has MORE front headroom and the same rear headroom as the CRV, yet it gets no praise for that and you rate the CRV higher in its comfort rating; 3) The Rogue offers MORE front legroom than the CRV yet, for some inexplicable reason, in its review, it gets the caveat of "though front legroom may be insufficient for taller drivers." At 43in?!? Shouldn’t the CRV, with its lesser 41.3”, have received that same caveat? Surely, it was deserving of it with 1.7" less room. Yet, confusingly, you rate the CRV higher in room and comfort; 4) The Rogue also lacks a protruding transmission tunnel. Where is its gushing comment on your review about that design feature?; 5) The Rogue's cargo area, at 39.3” is LARGER than that of the CRV's, yet the CRV's is praised as being "vast" and ready to "swallow just about anything,” whereas the Rogue barely gets a nod; and 6) The Rogue, actually, has MORE passenger volume, at 106 cu. ft., over the CR-V’s 101. But, the CRV still wins in room and comfort? What gives?

    Additionally, as far as practicality is concerned, the Rogue offers: 1) three 120v outlets, to the CRV’s two; 2) a rear seat that reclines AND slides fore and aft a full 9”, whereas the CRV’s only reclines; 3) a rear seat that folds down in THREE sections (40/20/40), as opposed to the CRV’s two (60/40); 4) a higher maximum passenger count of 7, as opposed to the CRV’s 5; 5) Nissan’s “Divide ‘N’ Hide” cargo system, which is immensely useful, as opposed to no such system in the CRV; 6) a premium, rockin’ BOSE audio system, as opposed to no premium offering in the CRV; and 7) the obvious convenience of AUX input, whereas the CRV, bewilderingly, lacks this basic feature. Yet, you still crown the CRV as the king of practicality in the compact SUV segment? How, again, did you come to that conclusion?

    As far as the interior goes, you ACTUALLY call Honda out in the cheap plastics it uses for the CRV. Conversely, you ACTUALLY praise the Rogue’s high-quality interior. (Whoa!) Why, though, do you rate them in this regard, identically, with a B? How, again, is this fair and unbiased?
    Similarly, you praise both for having a comfortable ride (for the Rogue, stating: “[Its] suspension is definitely set up to favor a smooth ride over sharp handling…comfort remains the order of the day”), yet you give the Rogue a B in that regard, and an A for the CRV. Furthermore, the Rogue’s front seats are widely-regarded as being one of the most comfortable front seats in the business in ANY segment (and, speaking from experience and based on other reviews, they are, whereas the CRV’s seats are outright uncomfortable). However, perplexingly, you rate the CRV’s just as high, giving them both an A rating. Hmm…(more to come)
  • (Continuation)...As far as driving experience is concerned, you trash the Rogue for its CVT. But, Honda comes along, playing catch-up with the technology, and SUDDENLY you don’t mind the CVT, anymore. Perhaps, it’s possible that the CRV’s CVT behaves SLIGHTLY better (even though I didn’t notice much of a difference). But, does that merit it receiving an A rating over the Rogue’s C, especially when their power plants are, virtually, identical? Sure, the CRV (according to your tests) may accelerate negligibly faster to 60, at 8.8 seconds. But, should the Rogue’s 9.3 sec. time (a difference of only HALF a second) really relegate it to a C rating and have its acceleration described as “subpar” and, apparently, necessitating one to “wring it out,” whereas the CRV gets a higher rating? Is a barely-felt half a second THAT important? And, as far as handling is concerned, you bash the Rogue for its “ponderous” handling, although you admittedly state that it’s “safe and secure” just not “engaging,” yet, later, describe it as having “good capabilities behind the wheel.” However, you still give it a C rating for “fun to drive.” For the CRV, though, SUDDENLY tepid handling doesn’t seem to matter that much. For it, you state: “Is it fun to drive? No. But, for most, that won’t matter.” (What? Suddenly, it doesn’t matter? Why? Cuz it’s a Honda?) And, you proceed to give it a higher rating in “fun to drive” over the Rogue. More damning is the fact that they BOTH get one B and one C in this section, yet you give the Rogue an overall C, but a B to the CRV! Why do you raise one grade, yet reduce the other? How does this make sense?

    As far as MPG is concerned, I have TOTALLY matched and even have BEATEN the Rogue’s EPA estimates – my highest highway rating has been 36.2. And, I regularly get city estimates in the low twenties, with regular highway jaunts in the low 30’s. Yet, you rate the fuel economy of the Rogue a C and the CRV’s an A, when they have the same estimates (simply because YOU weren’t able to replicate the estimates)? Everyone knows that the way an individual drives is a huge determining factor as regards fuel economy ratings. And, you guys have a BUNCH of people with lead feet driving around in your long-term testers.

    These are just a few examples, not even taking into consideration the overall FEEL of the cars – where, again, the Rogue feels so much more substantial, luxurious and grown-up than the CRV (to anyone with half a brain and pair of working hands and eyes, at least). But, I guess that the CRV being able to accelerate HALF a second quicker, and its apparent slightly better-behaving CVT, as well as its less than half an inch more of rear legroom means it deserves an A rating over the Rogue’s C. Conversely, however, all of its disadvantages compared to the Rogue don’t make it deserve a lower rating. And, all of the Rogue’s advantages compared to the CRV don’t allow any concessions for the Rogue. It’s, also, interesting how for almost any other car that you review, and want to push-on to your readers, interior quality, presentation and comfort are SO important (enough for a car to win a comparison test – or a higher rating over another car), yet, for some reason, suddenly it doesn’t matter enough, in this case. (Oh, I forgot, the only thing to remember about the Rogue is how the CVT is SOOO bad.)

    Point is, basing oneself off of your very own reviews and specs, both cars deserve the same rating - whichever one it is you decide to pick. Yet, for some inexplicable reason, you give the Rogue a horrible C, and the CRV a blatantly undeserved A. All one has to do, as a reader, is compare your very own notes to see how none of that makes any sense. (I haven’t even gone into all of the inconsistencies/discrepancies I’ve found in comparing your reviews of the Sentra vs. the Civic, the Altima vs. the Accord, or the Pathfinder v. the Pilot – if I did, I’d need so many more pages.) So, the question is: Are you guys truly unbiased and uninfluenced by auto manufacturers? It really doesn’t seem that way. (Keep in mind, despite my username, I’m also a fan of many other makes, including Honda – however, I’m more increasingly, day-by-day, becoming less of a fan of yours. Car Connection and New Car Test Drive, here I come!)
  • Nissmasslover, I LOVE your comments. I just bought a 2017 fully loaded Rogue (including the luscious special platinum interior brown leather) and I am in love with it. I drove the new redesigned CRV, it was capable but bland, boring. Mazda CX5 handled nice but the infortainment screen and how it adjusts was a turn off. Rav4 was extremely disappointing, VW new alltrack was nice, but pricey. Getting behind the wheel of the Rogue was like coming home. it just felt RIGHT. In fact, it feels as nice, if not nicer, than the Lexus RX300 I used to own (10 years ago).

    The seats are so comfortable, all the switches are solid feeling, the drive is comfortable, my mileage is coming up as it breaks in. I have a few niggles, like there is no light in the cargo area that illuminates UNDER the cargo cover, would like to have all windows be auto up/down, the rearview camera is not quite as sharp as the one on my son's RAM 1500, would like a sliding armrest, but none of these things are deal breakers, or even really that important.

    I am hoping for many years of fun with this cuv.
Sign In or Register to comment.