Good info Steve. Your '08 is also missing the latest generation of Ford's hybrid tech too. I would imagine an '09 or later would be even better.
FWIW, C&D's test of the '10 Equinox resulted in 18 mpg. I'm sure they achieved that doing 0-60 and 1/4 mile runs as well as some highway driving, but that's 4 mpg below the EPA city rating and not impressive at all.
We kept the pedal floored virtually all the time (helping to explain the poor fuel economy); the transmission upshifts too early otherwise, making the engine bog and feel unduly weak—like it could use a membership to Equinox, the upscale health club chain.
Looks like the Equinox FE ratings might fall into the old "If it sounds too good to be true..." category. But hey, you can give it back now if you don't like it!
Why would anyone consider a Forester or CRV, given the new Chevy Equinox is far superior? And ... the purchase of an Equinox doesn't add to the trade deficit, and consequently national debt, as does the purchase of foreign vehicles.
Who pays the debt service on the national debt? We taxpayers.
Why would anyone consider a Forester or CRV, given the new Chevy Equinox is far superior? And ... the purchase of an Equinox doesn't add to the trade deficit, and consequently national debt, as does the purchase of foreign vehicles.
Who pays the debt service on the national debt? We taxpayers.
Psst - don't tell anyone but the Equinox is made in Canada with a Japanese transmission and Chinese engine. But don't worry - it's still an American car not like that Ohio built CR-V.
You might do better to discuss why you think the Equinox is "far superior" than all the political reasons to buy one. We have a "news and views" forum to discuss those details. This is more about the vehicles themselves.
Dang right ... GM won't be in hot water if the Equinox is "far superior" ... check out the owner reviews / ratings. I think the big 3 here : Ford is on top, GM is in middle and Chrysler is in bottom. I swear I won't buy another Chrysler again after 1 lemon, except Chrysler is only car manufacturers left in this world, which I doubt 101%. Wonder why MB was so dumb to deciding to merge with Chrysler, but they are smart enough to unload Chrysler promptly. I bet MB lost a bundle, lessons learned in this merge.
Yep, something was lost on the way to Germany with Chrysler. The original idea was that MB would teach Chrysler precision relaible German engineering. Instead, it seems Chrysler taught MB how to do slip shod, slap-together manufacturing. Ever since, MB has moved to the bottom of the reliabilty and customer satisfaction ratings. They use to be the best.
Oh, and I now own a Ford crossover and overjoyed still after 2 years. They got their act together by importing an airplane guy from outside to restructure the company.
the real reason was that daimler was in big financial trouble and chrysler was sitting on a pile of cash. chrysler knew the retiree issue was going to hit them eventually. daimler bought them and was pretty much a parasite. chrysler upper management was a willing partner, though.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Hello: I'm considering a crossover as my next vehicle. The main things I'm looking for are value, mpg, reliability and interior space and legroom (espec. in rear seat). I want leather and at least 3500 lb towing capacity. I don't need AWD, 3-row seating, NAV system, etc.
Can anybody suggest a "winner"? I've only looked at one so far (Hyundai Santa Fe), but was not impressed with the interior legroom and space in the rear seat. I'm a big guy and felt as if I actually had LESS space in the rear seat than in my current Honda Accord. Are all crossovers this tight in the rear seat (second row)? That was the first one I've ever sat in and was surprised it was so tight back there.
If Honda is losing money, and building CR-Vs in Ohio, the Japanese government may actually end up subsidizing american jobs.
Any how, in case you slept through the 80s and 90s, the Buy American thing just doesn't work. Argue the merits of the vehicle, sure (can you elaborate on what you like about the 'nox?), but don't expect consumers to buy an import from Canada out of pity for GM.
I am in the same boat as many here. Cant find what I like or wish to pay for. Our 05 escape is great wife loves it, no maintenance problems at all,but it is getting time to turn it in. I have not looked yet at the new alternatives except for online. Anyway empty nesters and just retired I want HID and memory seats. Memory seats important if we down size to one car. That eliminates many, cx7 limited 2010 and RDX, would fit the bill, but really do not want a turbo. Nox,escape,mariner no seats or lights,venza and Murano can get the lights but no memory seats on venza,poor rear visibility on Murano. Tiguan has it all but it is a VW plus turbo, this thing has to last. One nice thing about he escape is the liftgate actually opens up, where most are fixed,I can get xplan through ford and if you pay cash you can get 2000 cash back from Ford,plus we have a 750 bonus cash email for owning a ford,which ends on 9/30. But after C4C there is little inventory on anything especially V6 AWD. I have had 4 Grand Cherokee's since 1996 love them, but they trashed the interior in 07,did not get another. Got an Acura Tl which goes off lease next August, I will cry when I have to turn it in,fun to drive 30-32 on the road at 75+. Crv test drove many times 3 years ago, no power. Rav4,no lift gate, and tire sticking up, will have to look into Rav with small spare. Cx9 perhaps too big,wife will drive it quite a bit. Will probably be forced into another Escape due to incentives even on 2010 model. Any suggestions. RX350, big bucks,from reading the reviews there are some who would rather have their 07 back as opposed the the 2010. Thanks Old Mike PS: Did I say need a outstanding audio system.
Not sure what your price limit is mf15 but you can use the X-Plan on a Lincoln MKX which meets all of your requirements. The Edge has the memory seats but no HID lights that I could find. I have an '09 Flex Limited and it has HID lights (LED tail lights too) and memory seats among other things (like a power liftgate for example, but no separate glass unfortunately). I don't know if the Flex is too big for you or not but it costs about the same as an Edge, less than an MKX, and offers a lot more space and convenience for the money.
When will the updated Hyundai Tucson be available in the US? Apparently it will be introduced at the LA Auto Show, but not sure what that means in terms of getting to showrooms. Thanks.
baggs: Thanks I will look at the MKX again but it seems like it might be bigger than we need. I know the CRV has had a upraged in HP but still believe it is slow. The escape is a great size too bad cannot get what I actually want on it or the mariner. You would think that the mercury would go a little more upscale but I guess they don't want to hurt any lincoln sales. Old Mike PS: Checked out the MKX huge price,no HID lights,hard to believe. Probably too big anyway.
PS: Checked out the MKX huge price,no HID lights,hard to believe. Probably too big anyway.
I can't say if it's too big for you or not but the Edge and MKX are not much larger than the Escape. We shopped them before we leased our '08 Escape and the Edge/MKX definitely have more passenger space but the cargo space is roughly the same as in the Escape. The outside isn't much bigger either however they are a bit wider than the Escape. The HID lights in the MKX are part of the $995 Ultimate Pkg which can be had on any MKX and includes other features like upgraded seats, larger wheels, and a cargo management system among a few other things. It's not a bad deal considering the HID lights are adaptive and move with the vehicle in turns to better light your path going around curves.
If you cold find an '09 MKX that you like the rebates are really good on them right now. In my area you can get $1500 off AND 0% for 36 months. The other cash offers are $4500 off if you finance through Ford Credit and $3500 off if you don't. Those may vary for your area but combine that with the X-Plan and you're looking at about $6000 to $7000 off of the sticker for starters.
Honestly I think this is the price range you are going to have to shop in to meet both of your main criteria. Especially since you eliminated just about all of the small SUVs that do meet the criteria for other reasons. I do understand your want for something more compact though. We find ourselves taking the Escape out for just about all of our errands and short trips simply because it's easier and more fun to drive than the Flex. Don't get me wrong, the Flex is a really great vehicle but it is big and not as convenient for short runs to the store or to the park with the kids. Fantastic for long highway trips though and trips to the big box stores with the kids because we can't fold the second row seats down with them in there.
Especially since you eliminated just about all of the small SUVs that do meet the criteria for other reasons
I watched Motorweek last night and they said the 3500 lbs towing for the Equinox is only for V6 equipped models.
So no 32 mpg highway if you need to tow 3500 lbs.
The V6 mileage is actually disappointing. It doesn't stand out at all, the way the 4 banger does, even though both engines are direct injected and the V6 is small (3.0 liters).
Thanks Baggs: With being retired now its just the two of us, money is tighter. MKX just more than I want to spend. I have pretty much decided that I will just have to be content with an Escape. But may take a look at an Outlander 2010 when it comes out. Besides, I still have my fun car the TL for another year. Thank again. Old Mike
But may take a look at an Outlander 2010 when it comes out.
The 2010 Outlander will be out in October. A couple of things to keep in mind. If you want to tow 3500lbs with the Outlander, you will need to go with one of the 3.0l V6 trims,4WD, and also purchase the towing package (would also be required for the RAV-4). Mitsubishi states that they have increased the power and also improved fuel economy of their V6. While not as powerful(230hp vs. 269hp) or fuel-efficient (17/23 (2009 model) vs. 19/26) as the 3.5l V6 in the RAV-4, it does come mated to a decent 6-speed auto with manual shift control available (useful when towing). Finally, it appears Mitsubishi has improved the Outlander's interior and added some stitched leather surfaces on the doors and the dash.
The Outlander is often overlooked in this crowded segment. I find this unfortunate, since it is a rather competent vehicle.
I can only recommend test-driving the Outlander, as well as other vehicles recommended in this thread that might fit your bill. In my humble opinion, a test-drive is usually worth far more than the reviews being posted by the automotive press and personal opinions like my own.
The bad part about Mitsubishi's diminished presence in the US is the fact thatthe dealer network is fairly sparse in comparison with that more efficient, more powerful Toyota. I live in a metro area that approaches one million people (Birmngham,Al) and couldn't tell you where a Mitsubishi dealer is. Ask me another obscure make and I probably could. Saab, Suzuki, Smart or Mini are all more well advertised (and probably do better business) than Mitsubishi. Will it go the way of Isuzu inthe next decade? I hope not.
Psychogun thanks: Have nothing to tow,and the poor sales for Mitsu and lack of a large dealer network are a negetave. The outlander is at least something refreshed to look at, with advanced tech annd I think a new awd sys. The look of the new front end might have to grow on me.
Yeah, the 19mpg combined certainly needs improvement. As stated, Mitsubishi appears to have addressed this in the 2010 Outlander 3.0l V6, which is expected to be more fuel efficient thanks to improvements in the engine and transmission (we'll still have to see how it translates in the real world).
One thing to consider, Mitsubishi tends to tune their engines and transmissions more aggressively (i.e. shorter gear ratios and higher rev shift points) than most car makers (Mazda does this too). This contributes to the Outlanders poor fuel economy but certainly ups the fun factor. This is part of the reason why I think a test drive is a good idea. That way one can weigh the pros and cons of each vehicle with ones specific needs in mind.
The graduate also makes an excellent point regarding dealer network density. If you have to drive 30+ miles just to get to a dealership, that should weigh on the purchase decision as well. However, Mitsubishi is highly unlikely to ever leave the U.S. market. They have reiterated their commitment over and over, but the largely unfounded rumors persist.
That's good, let's see if the EPA numbers improve. The 15.8 gallons gas tank is fine for the 4 banger but a bit small for the V6.
I actually like the new EVO face, unlike mf15.
Mazda does indeed gear very short, even in 6th gear my Miata's rpm are too high at highway speeds. It needs a 7th, maybe even 8th, cruising gear!
The Miata's range is also poor, with a small fuel tank, but I can accept that given that car's mission. I just hate having to get gas every 5 days. My van has a 21 gallon tank and can go nearly twice as far between fillups.
I signed up to be alerted when it becomes available. My current car, a '99 Galant with 151K miles, has been more reliable than any car I've ever owned, including a Camry, Sentra, and Mazda MX-3. That 3L V6 is a very nice engine.
They shouldn't get ahead of themselves, though, the current Outlander doesn't have S-AWC, but rather plain ol' AWC, without the S. They use the same name for the system in the EVO, though I doubt it's the same (more a brand name I suspect).
I like the EVO grille and those 7 spoke rims are also nice.
we have an '04 Escape Limited with 6 cyl. since we needed another vehicle for one of the kids, we decided to pass the 04 on and buy a new vehicle for my wife to drive. my wife looked looked at MZX, Edge Limited, and Escape Limited. there are huge improvements in the '09 Escape, all for the good. the 2 things you can't get in the escape are cooled/heated front seats (heated only) and power rear lift gate. even with 20% more horsepower, it is getting about 20% better fuel mileage.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
The S in S-AWC refers to the left-right independent torque vectoring (in addition to the front-rear transfer regular AWC is capable of). Only the V6 versions of the Outlander will feature S-AWC (indeed the same as found on the Evo, though less stoutly built since less stress will be exerted by the 3.0l V6).
Back to the Equinox again. Edmunds just tested a 2010 FWD I4 and the best they could do was 21 mpg which is still below the EPA city rating.
How did the EPA come up with 22 city and 32 highway exactly? Was it their downhill while drafting a semi test or what? Or did GM do this rating for them (which happens more often than you would think) and they took their word for it?
All in all they are still impressed with the new 'Nox. But that FE GM keeps touting is starting to look like a big fat lie.
C&D gets 18 mpg, FWD no less, and now Edmunds gets 20.6 mpg, also with a FWD 4 banger.
I guess what works on a dyno inside a lab doesn't necessarily translate in the real world.
The reviews complain about the reluctancy of the tranny to downshift, so drivers may have been compensating for that by adding more throttle. Ironically the result is poor mileage, when the original aim was to improve efficiency.
I still think it looks good inside and out. Imagine what that powertrain could do it if weighed a bit less than its 3,783 lbs.
Same 179hp 2.5l from last year, but they made a backup came standard even on the base model. Good idea. It's the type that is in the rear view mirror.
Sport package mandates run-flats - deal killer for me after all the negative feedback in the Sienna threads. It gets the spare off the back, but now that you have a backup cam, I'd pick the spare over the run-flats any day.
The reviews complain about the reluctancy of the tranny to downshift, so drivers may have been compensating for that by adding more throttle. Ironically the result is poor mileage, when the original aim was to improve efficiency.
Good point. Our Enclave was the same way. It upshifted way too early so we were always having to get on the gas to get it to downshift to have enough power. GM came out with a software update for the tranny with the warning that it would/could have a negative impact on mileage. It delayed the shift points and the TC lock-up. The update made the vehicle shift like it should have in the first place. Our mileage did not go down at all, and may have increased ever so slightly.
Moral of the story - what is good for mileage ratings may not be good in the real world.
I think if you drive like a little old woman on a Sunday morning the original tranny programming on the Lambda's may have been fine. If you drive even remotely aggressively then it was not tuned properly. My main gripe is that it would upshift part way through a left (or right) handed turn. As soon as we were going straight again and wanted some power to accelerate it would have to downshift. Now it stays in the lower gear through the turn.
I've started driving my Outlook more and my old Trooper less in the past 2 months. ('08 Outlook new August 2008). My take on the tranny is that 5th and 6th are overdrive and double overdrive and work best on flat roads. Around town and in hilly terrain downshifting to a lower gear is required. It seems to me that say going uphill on the Interstate at 65-75 that the tranny usually downshifts from 6th to 4th once it needs to keep up the speed, esp if you are using cruise. I think I can ease on and off the accelerator and moderate the shifting and probably get better gas mileage than letting cruise handle that with the excessive downshifting.
About a month ago I started driving in the 'L' position and using the +/- button on the shift handle. Around town I'll shift down to 2 or 3 when stopping at a light and upshift when rpm get around 2300-2500 which seems to keep it in a decent power range. When up to speed (1200 rpm or so @ 45 mph) if I need a little more power for acceleration or up a hill, I will down shift to 4th or 5th then back up to 6th when the need is satisfied.
Mileage reading for past 500 miles or so is hanging at 20.5. Driving is about half city street (very mild stop and go, more go than stop) and about half Interstate or open highway around the metro Memphis area.
I have not been out on the open highway much lately since I've started this, but dropping back to 5th up hill seems to usually add enough power to 'smooth' out the uphill sections rather than wait until the computer drops it down to 4th.
Anyway, this is just the way I've started driving the Outlook. Years ago I had several 4 or 5 speed manual tranny cars and like to shift sometimes. My Outlook has the Trailer package with Trailer Mode switch. I have used that just a little and that seems to hold to higher shift points and might be another option if you feel you need a little better power band.
0-60 in 10.7 seconds is also back-of-the-pack (V6 does it in 9.1s).
That's the first I've paid attention to those figures. Not good. Not good at all.
I don't subscribe to CR myself. Can you tell us if their tests are typically more conservative when test driving than say, MT or C&D? I recall them being a good bit less performance oriented than other mags but can't say for sure now. If they still are more conservative then those FE numbers look even worse IMO.
Not discounting that the FE and power figures are poor in class, I still don't get why 0-60 in 10 seconds is so bad. I've owned a few vehicles that were slower than that and drive one currently. Only one ever gave the impression of being underpowered and slow - a 92 Pathfinder with a 150hp V6. Don't buy an SUV, even a small one for "sporty" performance IMHO. Don't misunderstand, I like a vehicle that can be quick and handle well and I own one of those too, it's just not my criteria for a family hauler. Silk purse out of a sow's ear and all that.
IMHO, yes. I read it as if I were thinking to myself "what car would they recommend for my aunt Edna".
Disclaimer: I don't actually have an aunt Edna.
Basically they are very practical. Having said that, a sporty car like a Boxster can and does score very high.
They do not use brake-torqueing to improve 0-60 numbers, so they tend to be on the slow side. Still, just about every Equinox competitor does better.
Their mileage figures are not usually high - I do better in each car I own, tie for my Miata, which I drive hard.
Having said that, the RAV4 V6 did better. The class best for a non-hybrid is the Forester with the manual transmission, at 25mpg actual, and EPA numbers aren't nearly as good as the 'nox.
Gotta wonder if GM was a bit optimistic with their EPA test. GM performs the test, though I believe the EPA will run tests to verify some (not all) of the cars a manufacturer submits.
I didn't call the acceleration numbers poor, only "back-of-the-pack".
Our Forester is only slightly quicker. I'm not complaining, nor did we opt for the turbo XT model that was available from Subaru.
Having said that, with Direct Injection, 180hp, 6 speed auto, etc., that does sort of create some expectations. So does a 32 EPA highway claim which the plaster all over ever billboard on the east coast.
It's heavy, that's the real problem. The weight hurts both acceleration and fuel economy, not to mention handling, braking, and just about every performance measure.
They got the interior right. They got the exterior right. The powertrain is spot-on, at least on paper (maybe work on the shift map for the trans). Put it on a diet and it will be a class leader.
Very surprised to see the Rav take the F-XT. They list the 07 Outlander. Anyone know how the 07 XT did? I'll bet it was better than the 09 having driven both. Outlander GT showing some serious numbers there. It's certainly the surprise in the top 5 - all the rest I expected, but admittedly in different order. I would have bet X6,Cayenne,X3 for top three. Too bad that Forester STi isn't production USDM.
Comments
FWIW, C&D's test of the '10 Equinox resulted in 18 mpg. I'm sure they achieved that doing 0-60 and 1/4 mile runs as well as some highway driving, but that's 4 mpg below the EPA city rating and not impressive at all.
Link
Wow, that's even a FWD model, AWD would do worse. :surprise:
We kept the pedal floored virtually all the time (helping to explain the poor fuel economy); the transmission upshifts too early otherwise, making the engine bog and feel unduly weak—like it could use a membership to Equinox, the upscale health club chain.
Who pays the debt service on the national debt? We taxpayers.
Who pays the debt service on the national debt? We taxpayers.
Psst - don't tell anyone but the Equinox is made in Canada with a Japanese transmission and Chinese engine. But don't worry - it's still an American car not like that Ohio built CR-V.
Oh, and I now own a Ford crossover and overjoyed still after 2 years. They got their act together by importing an airplane guy from outside to restructure the company.
chrysler knew the retiree issue was going to hit them eventually.
daimler bought them and was pretty much a parasite.
chrysler upper management was a willing partner, though.
Can anybody suggest a "winner"? I've only looked at one so far (Hyundai Santa Fe), but was not impressed with the interior legroom and space in the rear seat. I'm a big guy and felt as if I actually had LESS space in the rear seat than in my current Honda Accord. Are all crossovers this tight in the rear seat (second row)? That was the first one I've ever sat in and was surprised it was so tight back there.
Thanks
Gary
I don't know what you consider good fuel economy, but check out http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
Any how, in case you slept through the 80s and 90s, the Buy American thing just doesn't work. Argue the merits of the vehicle, sure (can you elaborate on what you like about the 'nox?), but don't expect consumers to buy an import from Canada out of pity for GM.
Instead, tell us why you like the Equinox.
Cant find what I like or wish to pay for.
Our 05 escape is great wife loves it, no maintenance problems at all,but it is getting
time to turn it in.
I have not looked yet at the new alternatives except for online.
Anyway empty nesters and just retired I want HID and memory seats.
Memory seats important if we down size to one car.
That eliminates many, cx7 limited 2010 and RDX, would fit the bill, but really
do not want a turbo. Nox,escape,mariner no seats or lights,venza and Murano
can get the lights but no memory seats on venza,poor rear visibility on Murano.
Tiguan has it all but it is a VW plus turbo, this thing has to last.
One nice thing about he escape is the liftgate actually opens up, where
most are fixed,I can get xplan through ford and if you pay cash you can get
2000 cash back from Ford,plus we have a 750 bonus cash email for owning
a ford,which ends on 9/30. But after C4C there is little inventory on anything
especially V6 AWD. I have had 4 Grand Cherokee's since 1996 love them,
but they trashed the interior in 07,did not get another.
Got an Acura Tl which goes off lease next August, I will cry when I
have to turn it in,fun to drive 30-32 on the road at 75+.
Crv test drove many times 3 years ago, no power.
Rav4,no lift gate, and tire sticking up, will have to look into Rav with small spare.
Cx9 perhaps too big,wife will drive it quite a bit.
Will probably be forced into another Escape due to incentives even on 2010 model.
Any suggestions. RX350, big bucks,from reading the reviews there are some
who would rather have their 07 back as opposed the the 2010.
Thanks
Old Mike
PS: Did I say need a outstanding audio system.
If the new Escape doesn't have memory seats and HIDs, don't get another one. Why throw out your 2 primary criteria?
Plus coming out of an Acura it won't seem as plush. At least get the Lincoln.
Looks seem derivative:
Front looks like european Fords and profile reminds me of the Rogue.
than we need.
I know the CRV has had a upraged in HP but still believe it is slow.
The escape is a great size too bad cannot get what I actually want on it or
the mariner. You would think that the mercury would go a little more upscale
but I guess they don't want to hurt any lincoln sales.
Old Mike
PS: Checked out the MKX huge price,no HID lights,hard to believe.
Probably too big anyway.
I'd change the D-pillar for better (i.e. some) visibility, mostly.
Probably too big anyway.
I can't say if it's too big for you or not but the Edge and MKX are not much larger than the Escape. We shopped them before we leased our '08 Escape and the Edge/MKX definitely have more passenger space but the cargo space is roughly the same as in the Escape. The outside isn't much bigger either however they are a bit wider than the Escape. The HID lights in the MKX are part of the $995 Ultimate Pkg which can be had on any MKX and includes other features like upgraded seats, larger wheels, and a cargo management system among a few other things. It's not a bad deal considering the HID lights are adaptive and move with the vehicle in turns to better light your path going around curves.
If you cold find an '09 MKX that you like the rebates are really good on them right now. In my area you can get $1500 off AND 0% for 36 months. The other cash offers are $4500 off if you finance through Ford Credit and $3500 off if you don't. Those may vary for your area but combine that with the X-Plan and you're looking at about $6000 to $7000 off of the sticker for starters.
Honestly I think this is the price range you are going to have to shop in to meet both of your main criteria. Especially since you eliminated just about all of the small SUVs that do meet the criteria for other reasons. I do understand your want for something more compact though. We find ourselves taking the Escape out for just about all of our errands and short trips simply because it's easier and more fun to drive than the Flex. Don't get me wrong, the Flex is a really great vehicle but it is big and not as convenient for short runs to the store or to the park with the kids. Fantastic for long highway trips though and trips to the big box stores with the kids because we can't fold the second row seats down with them in there.
I watched Motorweek last night and they said the 3500 lbs towing for the Equinox is only for V6 equipped models.
So no 32 mpg highway if you need to tow 3500 lbs.
The V6 mileage is actually disappointing. It doesn't stand out at all, the way the 4 banger does, even though both engines are direct injected and the V6 is small (3.0 liters).
MKX just more than I want to spend.
I have pretty much decided that I will just have to be content with an Escape.
But may take a look at an Outlander 2010 when it comes out.
Besides, I still have my fun car the TL for another year.
Thank again.
Old Mike
The 2010 Outlander will be out in October. A couple of things to keep in mind. If you want to tow 3500lbs with the Outlander, you will need to go with one of the 3.0l V6 trims,4WD, and also purchase the towing package (would also be required for the RAV-4).
Mitsubishi states that they have increased the power and also improved fuel economy of their V6. While not as powerful(230hp vs. 269hp) or fuel-efficient (17/23 (2009 model) vs. 19/26) as the 3.5l V6 in the RAV-4, it does come mated to a decent 6-speed auto with manual shift control available (useful when towing).
Finally, it appears Mitsubishi has improved the Outlander's interior and added some stitched leather surfaces on the doors and the dash.
The Outlander is often overlooked in this crowded segment. I find this unfortunate, since it is a rather competent vehicle.
I can only recommend test-driving the Outlander, as well as other vehicles recommended in this thread that might fit your bill.
In my humble opinion, a test-drive is usually worth far more than the reviews being posted by the automotive press and personal opinions like my own.
For a compact? 19mpg? That's the best they can do?
I test drove the more efficient 4 banger with the CVT, and didn't like the transmission at all. Nissan executes the CVT much better.
Poor mileage and a small gas tank kept me away from the V6.
to look at, with advanced tech annd I think a new awd sys.
The look of the new front end might have to grow on me.
Old Mike
As stated, Mitsubishi appears to have addressed this in the 2010 Outlander 3.0l V6, which is expected to be more fuel efficient thanks to improvements in the engine and transmission (we'll still have to see how it translates in the real world).
One thing to consider, Mitsubishi tends to tune their engines and transmissions more aggressively (i.e. shorter gear ratios and higher rev shift points) than most car makers (Mazda does this too). This contributes to the Outlanders poor fuel economy but certainly ups the fun factor. This is part of the reason why I think a test drive is a good idea. That way one can weigh the pros and cons of each vehicle with ones specific needs in mind.
The graduate also makes an excellent point regarding dealer network density. If you have to drive 30+ miles just to get to a dealership, that should weigh on the purchase decision as well. However, Mitsubishi is highly unlikely to ever leave the U.S. market. They have reiterated their commitment over and over, but the largely unfounded rumors persist.
Mitsubishi's poor sales are actually a positive for you as it will make the dealership more willing to negotiate price with you. Granted, if you are planning to trade the car in less than five years later, the worse than average depreciation will be a factor to consider.
http://www.intellichoice.com/reports/vehicleReport/vehicle_nmb/41013/2009/Mitsub- ishi/Outlander
From a reliability perspective, the Outlander should not give you any troubles.
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2009/mitsubishi/outlander/101068582/reliability.html
I actually like the new EVO face, unlike mf15.
Mazda does indeed gear very short, even in 6th gear my Miata's rpm are too high at highway speeds. It needs a 7th, maybe even 8th, cruising gear!
The Miata's range is also poor, with a small fuel tank, but I can accept that given that car's mission. I just hate having to get gas every 5 days. My van has a 21 gallon tank and can go nearly twice as far between fillups.
I signed up to be alerted when it becomes available. My current car, a '99 Galant with 151K miles, has been more reliable than any car I've ever owned, including a Camry, Sentra, and Mazda MX-3. That 3L V6 is a very nice engine.
They shouldn't get ahead of themselves, though, the current Outlander doesn't have S-AWC, but rather plain ol' AWC, without the S. They use the same name for the system in the EVO, though I doubt it's the same (more a brand name I suspect).
I like the EVO grille and those 7 spoke rims are also nice.
my wife looked looked at MZX, Edge Limited, and Escape Limited.
there are huge improvements in the '09 Escape, all for the good.
the 2 things you can't get in the escape are cooled/heated front seats (heated only) and power rear lift gate.
even with 20% more horsepower, it is getting about 20% better fuel mileage.
Only the V6 versions of the Outlander will feature S-AWC (indeed the same as found on the Evo, though less stoutly built since less stress will be exerted by the 3.0l V6).
Wow, that's even a FWD model, AWD would do worse.
Back to the Equinox again. Edmunds just tested a 2010 FWD I4 and the best they could do was 21 mpg which is still below the EPA city rating.
How did the EPA come up with 22 city and 32 highway exactly? Was it their downhill while drafting a semi test or what? Or did GM do this rating for them (which happens more often than you would think) and they took their word for it?
All in all they are still impressed with the new 'Nox. But that FE GM keeps touting is starting to look like a big fat lie.
Link
I guess what works on a dyno inside a lab doesn't necessarily translate in the real world.
The reviews complain about the reluctancy of the tranny to downshift, so drivers may have been compensating for that by adding more throttle. Ironically the result is poor mileage, when the original aim was to improve efficiency.
I still think it looks good inside and out. Imagine what that powertrain could do it if weighed a bit less than its 3,783 lbs.
Same 179hp 2.5l from last year, but they made a backup came standard even on the base model. Good idea. It's the type that is in the rear view mirror.
Sport package mandates run-flats - deal killer for me after all the negative feedback in the Sienna threads. It gets the spare off the back, but now that you have a backup cam, I'd pick the spare over the run-flats any day.
Good point. Our Enclave was the same way. It upshifted way too early so we were always having to get on the gas to get it to downshift to have enough power. GM came out with a software update for the tranny with the warning that it would/could have a negative impact on mileage. It delayed the shift points and the TC lock-up. The update made the vehicle shift like it should have in the first place. Our mileage did not go down at all, and may have increased ever so slightly.
Moral of the story - what is good for mileage ratings may not be good in the real world.
It was like getting a different vehicle.
About a month ago I started driving in the 'L' position and using the +/- button on the shift handle. Around town I'll shift down to 2 or 3 when stopping at a light and upshift when rpm get around 2300-2500 which seems to keep it in a decent power range. When up to speed (1200 rpm or so @ 45 mph) if I need a little more power for acceleration or up a hill, I will down shift to 4th or 5th then back up to 6th when the need is satisfied.
Mileage reading for past 500 miles or so is hanging at 20.5. Driving is about half city street (very mild stop and go, more go than stop) and about half Interstate or open highway around the metro Memphis area.
I have not been out on the open highway much lately since I've started this, but dropping back to 5th up hill seems to usually add enough power to 'smooth' out the uphill sections rather than wait until the computer drops it down to 4th.
Anyway, this is just the way I've started driving the Outlook. Years ago I had several 4 or 5 speed manual tranny cars and like to shift sometimes. My Outlook has the Trailer package with Trailer Mode switch. I have used that just a little and that seems to hold to higher shift points and might be another option if you feel you need a little better power band.
At least they were both AWD models.
Still, 21mpg doean't match the RAV4 or the Forester base engines, heck even the RAV4 V6 beats the 'nox.
You gotta wonder if those EPA numbers are a bit optimistic. This is the 3rd review that didn't even come close.
0-60 in 10.7 seconds is also back-of-the-pack (V6 does it in 9.1s).
Overall they called it "competitive" but ranked it much lower than the class leaders.
That's the first I've paid attention to those figures. Not good. Not good at all.
I don't subscribe to CR myself. Can you tell us if their tests are typically more conservative when test driving than say, MT or C&D? I recall them being a good bit less performance oriented than other mags but can't say for sure now. If they still are more conservative then those FE numbers look even worse IMO.
Disclaimer: I don't actually have an aunt Edna.
Basically they are very practical. Having said that, a sporty car like a Boxster can and does score very high.
They do not use brake-torqueing to improve 0-60 numbers, so they tend to be on the slow side. Still, just about every Equinox competitor does better.
Their mileage figures are not usually high - I do better in each car I own, tie for my Miata, which I drive hard.
Having said that, the RAV4 V6 did better. The class best for a non-hybrid is the Forester with the manual transmission, at 25mpg actual, and EPA numbers aren't nearly as good as the 'nox.
Gotta wonder if GM was a bit optimistic with their EPA test. GM performs the test, though I believe the EPA will run tests to verify some (not all) of the cars a manufacturer submits.
Our Forester is only slightly quicker. I'm not complaining, nor did we opt for the turbo XT model that was available from Subaru.
Having said that, with Direct Injection, 180hp, 6 speed auto, etc., that does sort of create some expectations. So does a 32 EPA highway claim which the plaster all over ever billboard on the east coast.
It's heavy, that's the real problem. The weight hurts both acceleration and fuel economy, not to mention handling, braking, and just about every performance measure.
They got the interior right. They got the exterior right. The powertrain is spot-on, at least on paper (maybe work on the shift map for the trans). Put it on a diet and it will be a class leader.
6 x 100 ft (mph)
BMW X6 M: 68.6
2010 Outlander GT: 66.2
Mercedes C Class: 65.8
RDX: 65.7
Cayenne Turbo X: 65.2
MB ML63 AMG 64.4
BMW X3: 64.4
07 Outlander XLS: 63.9
BMW X5 M 63.5
MDX: 62.6
LR2: 62
Audi Q5: 61.9
RAV4 LTD: 61.6
MB GLK: 61.3
Forester 2.5XT: 60.3
Murano LE: 59.2
MB ML350: 57.5
Lincoln MKX: 57.3
Note, that the X6 M on the top of the list costs $95K.
Mercedes C300 is given here as a car example.
Outlander GT showing some serious numbers there. It's certainly the surprise in the top 5 - all the rest I expected, but admittedly in different order. I would have bet X6,Cayenne,X3 for top three.
Too bad that Forester STi isn't production USDM.