Howdy, Stranger!

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

Crossover SUV Comparison



  • I am getting 33 MPG with my 2008 Rouge, fully loaded doewn so long as I keep it at 60 MPH and just at 2000 RPM!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    That's great. What's the lowest ratio on that CVT? And the final drive? Must be geared very tall.

    We can break 30 on our Forester as well, also by keeping speeds down. Problem is, limits are 65 in some places, and everyone else is moving a lot faster.

    Here's a euro-only (for now) Forester diesel: only-sorry-for-beefier-cleaner-new-diesel.html

    38.5mpg on the european cycle, but it won't meet CARB standards without AdBlue urea injections.
  • mega1gator: "I am getting 33 MPG with my 2008 Rouge, fully loaded doewn so long as I keep it at 60 MPH and just at 2000 RPM! "

    I don't want to brag (oh wait, yes I do...), but my Freestyle does 60 mph at 1600 rpm. The Freestyle's CVT wide rang of ratios are:
    Low ratio: 2.47:1
    High ratio: 0.41:1
    Final Drive Ratio: 4.98:1
    See Freestyle list of specs .. click here

    Come to think of it, I seem to remember my previous minivans would do about 2000 or so at 60 mph, so I don't think thats too exciting in the Rogue.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    That's very tall gearing, and should be good for economy, but remember the Rogue only burns 2.5 liters of air/fuel mix each revolution of the crank.

    Plus we'd have to look at how rich (or lean) that mixture had to be to carry that load, and the Rogue is lighter. If you have a trip computer and set your cruise control you can see how the mileage numbers drop when you're going uphill, and climb while you drive downhill, all due to the lean or rich fuel mix.

    RPM is just one factor.

    Let's look at an example. Compare a Corvette to the Enclave.

    Corvette has ultra-tall gearing and great aerodynamics and weighs 1700 lbs less than the Buick, yet EPA highway figures are the same. Huh?

    Why? Displacement.

    Each revolution of the crank it's sucking in nearly double the air/fuel mix, and you can't go too lean else you'll torch the pistons in your 'vette.

    The Rogue will simply get better mileage on the highway, naturally, as it should.
  • Sounds OK, except for the comments on lean and rich. The engine doesn't stray too far from stoichiometric under any conditions, since emissions are tightly controlled. Lean and rich refer to the air/fuel ratio at any given time, and that is nearly constant. As the butterfly throttle valve opens up inside the air intake, allowing more air in, the fuel injectors allow more fuel to flow, keeping air/fuel ratio constant no matter the road conditions.

    A vehicle's highway MPG is governed greatly by how much aero drag it has to push through, and how close to the peak torque point it can operate at, where its most efficient, as pumping losses in the air intake are lowest there.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Yeah, I guess it's using more air and more fuel to climb up a hill, though RPMs don't usually change.

    When you have a Trip Computer and get bored on a long trip, you pay attention to things like that. :D
  • I am about to get a 09 Rogue. I have a small boat with engine that I would like to tow. I have seen to specs one stateing a 1000lbs limit and another set at1500lbs. Does anyone know which is correct. I have never seen a Rogue with a hitch. I have only seen one Murano with a hitch even though it is rated at 3500lbs. I am wondering if there is a issue with the cvt that makes it unsuitable for towing.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    This is an educated guess, but...

    It's probably 1000 lbs limit with no trailer brakes, and 1500 lbs when your trailer is equipped with trailer brakes.

    Problem is, small trailers often do not have trailer brakes.

    Funny thing is this is in the small print for even some full sized trucks!

    I don't think the 1000 lb limit has anything to do with the CVT, especially since the Murano has a CVT and can pull 3500 lbs.
  • CR: "Reliability of new models by category

    These charts help you compare our Predicted Reliability Ratings for 2008 models within the same category. To create them, we calculate an overall reliability score for each of the three newest model years (2005, 2006, and 2007) provided the vehicle hasn't changed significantly in that time. Three-year data are a good predictor since most new models for this year are essentially the same as earlier models. Extra weight is given to some components, including the engine (major problems), cooling, transmission (major problems), and drive system. Each overall reliability score is compared with the average of all vehicles in our survey for that model year. The yearly differences are combined to give the Predicted Reliability score shown as percent. This overall average is the zero line in the charts. The bars represent the percentage by which each model was better or worse than the average.

    A broken bar indicates a percentage that extends beyond the chart. In cases where a model was new or redesigned last year, or where we simply lack data for more years, we might rely on one model year's data. Those models are labeled with an asterisk (*).

    Most brand-new models don't appear here because they have yet to establish a track record. Models redesigned for 2008 are shown with (2007) in their model name. In rare instances, we make a prediction for a new or redesigned model if the manufacturer's or model's history is typically outstanding."

  • psfod3psfod3 Posts: 63
    Nissan and many articles show the Murano as a top pick in the insurance institutes off set crash results. This is true but the NHTSA only give the Murano a 4 star rating for both the driver and front passenger in the 09 model(08 was 5 stars for both). This is awful for a 09 model. There is no excuse for that. In checking the NHTSA for small and midsize suvs it is one of the only cars with a 4 star rating. The 08 and 09 Rogue had 5 safety stars for driver a 4 for front passenger
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    You should add their overall scores as well. The order changes a lot.

    Forester is their top rated compact SUV.

    Reliability is important but the overall score includes many more criteria.
  • Karen_SKaren_S Posts: 5,095
    A reporter is looking to interview owners of a 2007 or 2008 minivan, SUV or crossover that is loaded with two or more high-tech features such as a navigation system, DVD player, heated mirrors, parking sensors, rear view cameras, iPod connectivity, radio data system, Bluetooth, satellite radio, tire pressure monitoring, universal garage door opener, Sync, etc. Please respond to before Friday, October 10, 2008 with your daytime contact information and a few words about your vehicle.

    Edmunds Manager UGC Click on my screen name to send a personal message. Need help navigating? Check out Getting Started in Edmunds Forums.
    Need help picking out a make/model, finding inventory, or advice on pricing? Talk to an Edmunds Car Shopping Advisor

  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 11,024
    A reporter from a large business magazine would like to speak with consumers who downsized from an SUV to a crossover or minivan to get better fuel economy. If you downsized for better fuel economy, please respond to with your daytime contact information no later than Monday, November 24th.


    Need help navigating? - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Share your vehicle reviews

  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    This forum has slowed down more than SUV sales!
  • No kidding. I'm about to buy an 08 Outlander, and there's not exactly a lot of chatter to feed on here. What about you?
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,059
    With gas prices plummeting and corporate bailouts it won't be too long before things pick up. :)

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • wheel_dawg, I like the Outlander. It has an aluminum roof to make it less top heavy. Thats innovative. Makes it less rollover prone. Also, I noticed something else unusual: The 2WD version gets the same MPG as the AWD version in the 4-cylinder/CVT model. Thats nearly the case in the V6 model, too. I wonder if its because the AWD can be turned off completely when not needed? In other vehicles that offer an AWD and frontWD version, the AWD system drags a little all the time, even during the summer when you don't want it there, reducing MPG all the time. Are you getting the 4-cylinder/CVT one? I love the CVT in my Freestyle, as it always finds the optimal driving ratio and is smoothe as silk.
  • I'm looking at an XLS (V6) with Nav, towing, and protection pkg. I want something with a small V6 that suits our needs (a little towing and a lot of dog-hauling and mountain bike hauling). I like the little features like the tailgate, the selectable AWD, the paddle shifters, and all the storage inside.
  • The Outlander is good. However, I like my '05 Freestyle better. It is wider than the Outlander by several inches, making it easier to haul bigger stuff. Longer, too. Freestyle crash tests well (Volvo-derived chassis). Small V6 like the Outlander. Love the CVT in the Freestyle, and I get 27 MPG on the highway, 20 MPG around town, very good for a big crossover. Steers and handles great. Mine is the 2WD version, not the AWD one, as the AWD Freestyle gets worse MPG.
  • Listen, I understand where you are coming from - American made is not at all the same as American assembled.

    However, I lived in Flint Michigan all my life (recently moved to Portland OR) and on both my side and my wifes, our fathers and grandfathers worked for GM.

    We get really good deals on GM cars, but I would not buy a GM car if I had to walk instead.

    What they did to their own workers in Michigan is unpardonable. Miles and miles of buried toxic waste under homes, scrapped quality vehicles, you name it.

    I feel differently about Ford, but I otherwise cannot and would not suggest supporting full American made vehicles. This is coming from a guy who helped his dad flip foreign cars onto their roofs as a kid, back in the 90s - when there were NO foreign cars in Flint.

    You cannot support em just because they are American. They treat Americans with pure contempt. Only way they will learn is to lose.
  • skeksis,
    I mainly say to people to just buy the vehicle that gets good crash test ratings, best-in-class fuel economy, handles well, steers well, quiet enough, rides smoothe enough, is roomy enough for them. Regardless of where its made. Fact is, for all those factors, I don't see anything that beats my '05 Ford Freestyle, which is part Swedish (Volvo initially designed the chassis), American (Ford changed the chassis design quite a bit), and German (Porsche originally designed the engine and ZF the transmission). Its assembled in Chicago by people who have health insurance, and I'm proud to help fund that. Consumer Reports says it has above average reliability (no trouble with mine, too.). Bottom line: Great car! The EPA MPG is 18 city and 25 highway in a 200" by 75" footprint vehicle. I've gotten as high as 27 MPG on very long highway trips. Not bad at all!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Ford just announced they're stopping Taurus X production.

    Though that might mean some bargains can be had.
  • 313313 Posts: 7
    I am looking for compact SUV and the target is either RDX or RAV4 V6 (Sport or Limited one). RDX has better outlook and great interior design especially with TECH package, it has everything I want (leather seat, bluetooth, NV) but I am worry about the noisy, gas millage, turbo issue and soft suspension (felt all the bumps) that other people mentioned. I know RAV4 is reliable and fuel economy but it really looks too simple. After check with several dealers, I can get 08 RDX TECH and 09 RAV4 V6 4x4 with very similar pricing (only 2K difference) if add some options on RAV4 such as leather seat, bluetooth, & smartkey. Please let me know which car will be the good choice? At the beginning, I really want to pick RDX since there is only 2K difference between Acura (higher class) & Toyota, but I don't want to have a trouble car after several years. Please let me know your comments. Thanks a lot.

    BTW, I am surprise that Toyota didn't drop their pricing a lot while the economy is so bad, especially in SF bay area. The 09 RAV4 SE V6 4x4 (w/leather seat, bluetooth, & smartkey) still need $28K + tax & fees.
  • I say don't get a turbo engine unless the engine has direct injection (not multiport injection). Therefore, the RAV4 is the best choice.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 11,024
    A reporter from a national newspaper would like to speak with consumers who have been frustrated by some manufacturers’ tendency to place safety related vehicle options into expensive packages. Have you ever wanted to equip a vehicle with specific safety features that required the purchase of an entire package? If so, please respond to with your daytime contact information no later than Friday, December 12.


    Need help navigating? - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Share your vehicle reviews

  • volkovvolkov Posts: 1,306
    Well, I don't agree with that statement at all...being an owner of my second non DI turbo. DI is an nice bonus but it would be on an N/A engine too. The plus for the turbo is that when driven very conservatively and keeping it "off-boost" one can get excellent mileage because essentially it's like driving a smaller engine, but the power is still there when needed or wanted.
  • volkov, Wrong. The problem is that adding a turbo forces the engine designer to lower the compression ratio, which hurts fuel economy. Direct injection allows the designer to keep the compression ratio at a normal high level while allowing the turbo to work.
  • coldcranker, I somewhat agree with you.

    I remember a couple decades ago when Turbos became all the rage. You could theoretically get more power from a smaller more efficient engine. But the quoted high power only comes in a narrow range at the highest RPM, so you just just get a tiny kick before shifting down again. The hot compressed air also meant less compression and less efficiency, as mentioned. Add to that the turbo lag in spining up and down, and turbos again became history, as they should have been.

    Since then, several things have changed. Dual gate turbines allow them to spin up and stay at speed once you get off idle, over 1000 RPM. Better air coolers mean you can keep some of the compression. But these advances still wasn't enough to make them worth considering.

    But the recent discovery of combining the turbo with the direct fuel injection into the cylinder (not the air stream), made a magic synergy (that Ford calls EcoBoost). First, through direct gas injection, you can boost or cut off the gas and power instantly without waiting for the turbine to change speed, giving fast throttle response. Next, the direct gas injection cools the air mixture as it expands, allowing good compression even with use of standard 87 octane gas. Finally, the torque curve is nearly flat over all RPM, unlike previous turbos that just had the torque spike at high RPM. So this EcoBoost technolgy gives an even FLATTER torque curve than normal gas engines. This means you'll get pushed back into your seat from the instant you hit the pedal. Also, your acceleration times will be better because the power is more even across all RPM as you accelerate.

    EcoBoost means you can get 3.5 liter V-6 power out of a much smaller I-4 engine, simultaneous with up to 25% or more better fuel economy (like over 30 MPG instead of 24 MPG on my big Taurus X crossover.) Furthermore, EcoBoost will feel even racier with more uniform torque, and be very responsive. It's a fantastic engineering combination that can't get to the market fast enough, IMO.

    More on EcoBoost here
  • I have heard about Ecoboost, which is a new spin on the current direct-injected turbo gas engines out there now (GM, Mazda, VW, etc.). I do tend to advise people that a good small displacement, low internal-friction, non-turbo 60 deg V6 is a smoother way to go than a shaky 4-cylinder. Direct injection benefits any engine, either turbo or not. Actually, I think you have to go to the approach VW is using, with direct injection, a turbo, and a supercharger, all on the same engine, to really get the performance out of a small-displacement engine without sacrificing fuel economy. VW Twincharger engine concept Popular Science article click here
    I think you have to go that direction based on the current evidence we have with the GM and Mazda direct injection turbo 4 cylinders out there now. For example, the Mazda CX-7 has an Ecoboost-style engine right now and doesn't get very good fuel economy at all. In comparison, my 4,000 lb Freestyle with a low-internal-friction small smoothe V6 (10.1:1 compression ratio), making 205 HP gets better fuel economy than the small, lighter Mazda CX-7 with its Ecoboost-like 4-banger engine. The proof is in the pudding.
Sign In or Register to comment.