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

Hyundai Santa Fe vs Toyota RAV4 vs Mazda CX-7 vs Ford Edge

1111214161727

Comments

  • Looked at the Rav4 and hated the rear door that hinges to the side with the spare hanging off of it due to my last car being a crv. this design is terrible, especially when you are unpacking the car in the garage.......

    btw - I am a CX-7 owner.
  • markanmarkan Posts: 48
    Does anyone know why the RAV 4 rear door hinges to the side? Is there any advantage to this design? After having several vehicles with top opening rear doors I can not imagine any reason for side opening other than for a really short person. Present RAV 4 owners please enlighten me. We're just starting to comparison shop for a CUV.
  • d_hyperd_hyper Posts: 130
    Is it because there's an extra wheel = mass on it, so it'd be very heavy to maintain/use?!
  • mark19mark19 Posts: 123
    well the rav4 is from japan. they never changed the hinges when they came over here to the US! that's why it opens to the right. and it's quite annoying, friend of mine has one, forget about opening it in tight spaces (or if a car is behind you on the street).

    The hatch (opens up not to the side) idea of the backend is a much better idea..
  • philmophilmo Posts: 77
    Honda figured it out withe CR-V. Toyota's marketing dinks most likely wanted to be able to pimp the "Most-Glorious-Feature-of-Third-Row-Seat" (apologies to Borat). Useless except for a family of circus performers. The third row seat has to go somewhere when folded, which is the volume below the cargo deck that would otherwise be used for a spare tire. Wait... Mitsubishi figured that out with the Outlander which stows the tire below AND has a third row seat! Ok, maybe they wanted to amortize the hinge assembly used for the FJ-50 which has that manly-man look with the rear-mounted, exposed spare tire. Ok, last hypothesis... like Germans making fun of our penchant for cupholders -- maybe Japanese designers want to watch us parallel park AND load the cargo area by walking all the way around the front of the car and into the street.
  • markanmarkan Posts: 48
    Always wanted to go splat on the street while carrying Christmas gifts. Are there no RAV4 owners out there to defend and explain this stupid design?
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    Unless you live in Tribeca or maybe Reno, you probably don't parallel park that often anyway, especially when getting groceries or big box stuff. Places like Durango or Aspen probably don't even have parallel parking anymore (ok, wonder how many people searching for the B9 or the Kia Reno or the Dodges are gonna get irritated when they land in a tailgate thread? :P ).

    I prefer a hatch too, but I still have to open my garage door to load my rides from the rear so it's not that big an issue. You'd think it'd be pretty easy to swap the hinges and wiring though since they are already moving the steering wheel back and forth for different markets. Maybe it's a safety testing expense changing the hinges to the other side?
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Posts: 498
    I used to have a 04 RAV 4 and 04 Santa Fe and now the CX-7. All store their spares differently. I'm speculating, that it all hinges (pardon the pun) on cargo space.

    The RAV 4 put the spare on the door to gain more space. What's nice about that, is that getting to the tire to fix a flat is very easy.

    For the CRV, I'll bet the designers were thinking the same thing as Toyota's...maximize cargo space.

    Santa Fe stores theirs underneath (undercarriage). There's a big tray under the cargo panel for storing tools, etc. Unfortunately, that option is truly a pain the rear, when it comes changing a tire.

    For the CX-7, it underneath the cargo panel and even has some room to store tools, etc.

    It'll be interesting to see how the CX-9 stores its spare.

    Of the 3, I like Mazda's design the best.

    Vince.
  • cxrabbitcxrabbit Posts: 134
    I like Mazda's design best as well. That's also the same design my Toyota Matrix uses, and my previous Saturn Station Wagon (from a few years ago) used. It's very convenience, easy to get to, and doesn't interfere with hatch design.

    The way the door opened on the Rav is a big part of why I ruled the car out quickly. I DO go into NYC a lot and often parallel park no only in there, but around here. It was too easy to imagine not being able to access the hatch at all because of a stupid side opening door design.
  • philmophilmo Posts: 77
    Places like Aspen and Durango do, however, have folks that use their SUVs for Sports and Utility. To that end, standing around in the snow while putting on ski gear, or in a thunderstorm -- a daily ocurrance in the summer -- while putting on yer waders, or otherwise setting up a camp is much better with the lid up rather than hanging around on the side getting soaked. I'm not grinding on anybody here in the forum, I'm just cranky with Toyota for the design. At one point we thought we might really spoil ourselves with a Lexus GX lease but guess what? The rear door opens the same way as the RAV4!
  • cironciron Posts: 4
    I am a very happy Rav4 owner. I for one like the side door design. You get better access to the full size spare. More than likely gain more cargo space and get the cargo compartment in back because of that. You don't have to lift a heavy door up/down or stand the chance of getting wacked in the head w/it.

    I also looked and really liked the CX-7, but my wife was buying this vehicle. The pros to the Rav4 was more cargo space than the CX-7 (36.4 cu ft VS 29.9 cu ft w/back seats up.) Much more w/the seats down, just can't recall how much.

    More rear leg room and adjustable rear seats. (recline and more forward or back) The CX-7 doesn't do that. Alot better turn radius. Runs on Regular instead of premium and better MPG. It also edged CX-7 in power.

    The Rav4 and CX-7 in my book were nose to nose w/everything else. My wife test drove both and fell in love w/the Rav at first drive. We didn't even look at the Santa Fe, even though it is a impressive SUV.

    Rav4 will more than likely have alot better resale value. (I know, you also at times probably have to pay somewhat more) I felt I received a good deal w/Toyota. I have heard people getting good deals on the Rav4 too, though.

    In the end we needed more room. We have a 3 month old and needed the cargo space and veratility. The Rav4 fit the bill. I think I defended the Rav4 very well.

    Travis
  • markanmarkan Posts: 48
    Thanks for your input. After driving the RAV4 I agree with you but still wish the door swung the other way. We are still waiting to drive an Edge. If it lives up to expectations this may be a two car race for us.
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    Have you looked at 07 Mitsubishi Outlander? The door opens right way (up), there is more cargo (39cu ft) and rear leg room (39")than both, better performance and handling (RAV 4 is a bit faster in a straight line 0-60 mph), standard V6 with 220hp, 6 speed trany, and much better price and warranty. As far as Edge, performance numbers are not that good. Check review in DEC Motor Trend, SUV of the Year contest. It's 0-60 mph of 8.0 sec is worse than RAV4, CX7 or XL7 (Outlander 8.1 sec, Santa Fe 8.5 sec) , slalom and lateral acceleration worse than all of them including Mitsu, Santa Fe and CRV, braking 60-0 mph of 142 ft worst of all, same for fuel economy (18/23 mpg).
  • Actually, to be fair to the side hinge crowd there are a few advantages:

    1. Doors that hinge from the side allow for things like skis to overhang the back of the vehicle.

    2. You can add a bike rack on the the spare to carry 1 or 2 bikes. I had this on my CRV but I was fearful of opening the door with the bikes on it.

    3. With a right hinge door, make sure you get the right bay in the garage. My car was stuck in the left bay and that is why I had to constantly walk around the damn door!

    To each his own! I still prefer the top hinge.......
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    Skis belong inside to keep the grime off the bases. :shades:

    The overhang issue is real though - when I carry canoes, the hatch only comes up so far before I bang the gunnels. You have to duck (watch your head!) to grab something. This load was better than usual since there was just one short solo canoe on top:

    imageSee more Car Pictures at CarSpace.com

    With either door, you have to untie the rear line on the canoe to open the door unless you fudge a bit and tie the rear painter to the roof rack (or omit tying it altogether). An opening hatch window would be great for those situations when you just want to toss one more flying projectile in the back. ;)
  • markanmarkan Posts: 48
    Thanks for the info. Outlander looks and sounds great. Problem is, we have to drive over 60 miles for a Mitsu dealer. Same for CRV or Santa Fe.
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    This will give you more time to enjoy your new car, and probably you will not have to make those trips too often. Many people drive 60 miles to work daily. Just go once and test drive all of them.
  • CX7 handles and feels MUCH better than your 2001 A4 quottro? I don't think so unless your A4 needs a suspension overhaul.

    The CX7 may be a great vehicle but some of the comparisons that I'm hearing here in this thread are utter nonsense.
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Posts: 498
    "but some of the comparisons that I'm hearing here in this thread are utter nonsense"

    Utter nonsense? Can you point to some examples?

    Thanks, Vince.
  • <<slalom and lateral acceleration worse than all of them including Mitsu, Santa Fe and CRV, braking 60-0 mph of 142 ft worst of all, same for fuel economy (18/23 mpg).>>

    Slalom and Lateral acceleration are very difficult to compare anymore as the stability control systems cut in so soon on the Edge when compared to other vehicles as it has RSC also. However the braking performance leaves something to be desired, and your fuel economy numbers are off. EPA est mpg 18/25 FWD and 17/24 AWD, but like everyone will see a drop of ~12% in the city and ~8% on the highway for the '08 model year.
  • "Utter nonsense? Can you point to some examples?"

    Vince,
    The post you responded to was an example.
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Posts: 498
    Ok thanks, I didn't pick up on that.

    BTW, out of over 400 posts in this discussion group, you pulled up only one comparison that you felt was invalid? That's why I was asking for some examples. I'm not an expert, so for me, it would be helpful to understand where some of the inaccuraces occur.

    Vince.
  • sssfegysssfegy Posts: 132
    I do beleive it has a nicer feel to it than my car..now I drive both everyday, owned the Audi for 5 years, and had the CX7 as a demo for 5 months..that gives me the right to state my opinion about both..now if you think it is nonsense to state so..what do you have to prove different? And don't tell me I test drove one
  • sssfegysssfegy Posts: 132
    Was much more stable in the CX7 with much better steering response and braking..again it felt much safer than my Audi..(I live in Denver) :P
  • I am a very happy Rav4 owner. I for one like the side door design. You get better access to the full size spare. More than likely gain more cargo space and get the cargo compartment in back because of that. You don't have to lift a heavy door up/down or stand the chance of getting wacked in the head w/it.

    Having a door mounted tire is great for easy access, but some people do have a hard time lifting a tire that high. The other drawback is it make the door heavier to handle for opening and closing. A third item is that rear mounted tires protrude a bit more than the vehicle so in a rear end collision the door is more likely to get damaged and actually cause more damge to the door than if a plain door gets hit. Vehicles with tires mounted underneath the vehicle are not super convenient either. Under the cargo tray just makes sense and is the easiest type of mounting to work with.
  • I do beleive it has a nicer feel to it than my car..now I drive both everyday, owned the Audi for 5 years, and had the CX7 as a demo for 5 months..that gives me the right to state my opinion about both..now if you think it is nonsense to state so..what do you have to prove different? And don't tell me I test drove one

    A "nicer feel" is a bit different than your original statement. I own a 2004 Audi, a 2005 New Generation VW Jetta and I'm cutting a deal on a CX7 tomorrow after putting one through the paces. The salesman let me go rugged on the vehicle and I took it on a very demanding twisty highway where I could hit 70 and 80 without trouble. I loved the way it performed enough to buy it and doubt that there is anything in it's SUV/CUV class that comes close including some of the more expensive vehicles out there, but it simply doesn't out handle my Audi or my VW Jetta, nor would I expect it to. I have yet to find a turn that these babies have trouble with, but I would not have that confidence with the CX7. It is fun to drive though, especially compared to CRV, RAV4, and Sante Fe. I tried to like the Sante Fe because of all the bang for the buck, but one thing I couldn't get used to was the bumpy ride. Not only was it a harsh ride, but each bump seemed to resonate through the seat to my back. I actually liked the CRV ride better. Just couldn't stand the CRV's low pep and lack of available amenities. What are they thinking? If people want more power and more luxuries, just offer it, instead of forcing people to go into a Pilot.
  • Ok thanks, I didn't pick up on that.

    BTW, out of over 400 posts in this discussion group, you pulled up only one comparison that you felt was invalid? That's why I was asking for some examples. I'm not an expert, so for me, it would be helpful to understand where some of the inaccuraces occur.

    Vince.


    If I have a chance to go back and review, I'll point them out, but if you look they are all over the place.
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    "and your fuel economy numbers are off"
    All of those numbers are MT tests numbers, so write to them about accuracy. BTW, I don't think you would get even !8/23 mpg in real life. Bottom line - numbers for the Edge are worse than competition according to MT.
  • sssfegysssfegy Posts: 132
    Sir your 04 A4 is not a 2001 A4..they are much more rugged than mine! The New jetta if it is the I5, te Cx7 would make it look bad, it is different if it is a GLI, but I don't think they made it in 2005..my point was the Cx7 is a great Cuv..you will love the CX7 more when you own it..then you might come back after a week and agree with me!
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    Motorweek and autoweek both reported getting 20 mpg in their AWD Edge and MKX. Don't believe everything that MT reports.
This discussion has been closed.