-September 2024 Special Lease Deals-
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
Nissan Rogue vs Honda CR-V vs Toyota RAV4
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Oh, of that I have no doubt...but it's fun to have when you want it.
I have nothing against Nissans, years ago I had an 1988 Pathfinder that was a wonderfully reliable vehicle.
Maybe you are shorter than I am; I have hit my head on too many liftgates to agree with you. And you'll never have to replace a flaccid strut on a swing gate.
It would be nice if they could do both, sort of like the old station wagon gates that could either swing open or drop down like a tailgate depending on which handle you operated.
Mike
i have no regrets getting the rogue so far, even when i hear about the RAV4 and CR-V.
nissans cvt are anything but new or untested. Nissan has invested HUGE amounts of money in cvt, and would not have switched over to a faulty trans.
That doesn't mean much...manufacturers have invested HUGE amounts of money in many things that have turned out to be mistakes in the long run...
Time will tell...maybe my next vehicle will have a CVT.
yes it does. it means nissan has spent the money to improve on each version, and thoroughly tested it. in other words, they didn't just design something on paper then start throwing it in cars.
Time will tell
time has already told. they've been used for long enough for any serious design or engineering flaws to have shown up. They are more reliable than the automatic transmissions nissan used/uses. it's not even debateble anymore. the technology is neither new nor unproven.
It is a Toyota, after all!
Why?
I was converted to the church of the cvt with the Ford Freestyle. Granted you couldnt take immediately off like a rocket on steroids with it, but you could certainly raise eyebrows having a 4000+lb vehicle suddenly go from 10mph to30 or 40+... It certainly had a nice growl to it accelerating, but all in all, it was heavy for its engine.
See, reason I went for a cvt vehicle is 90 tempo tranny froze in first gear and such... I like the idea behind the cvt. one might need to get used to the lack of "proper" gears, but just imagine the nightmare that is the semi-truck automatic transmission. Far too much could go wrong there at any time.. Like regular geared autos. After all, suddenly finding yourself restricted to one gear pulling away from a stoplight is rather irritating.
Currently, I have a Forester, and at times I tend to force that into a psuedo-cvt-ness, not that it works that well. Time and again, I'm reminded by the acceleration lag of the Forester that it simply is not a cvt.
I do wonder however, at the lack of comparisons between Forester and the Rogue, after all, they do seem to be in similar classes.
How is headroom in the Rogue? with/without sunroof?
If you need more time than 20 years, so you don't feel like a "guinea pig", then you should probably note that the concept for the design is more than 500 years old . Where as the concept of a conventional automatic transmission with gears has only been around for about 100 years.
As is true with all new concepts and technology, there will inevitably be nay-sayers. Eventually everyone comes around and starts thinking similarily though. Which is probably why both Honda and Toyota are scrambling to release north american versions of their own CVT transmissions.
Oh, and some reasons to go for a CVT (in any manufacturer):
1. Fuel efficient
2. Great power from the engine straight to wheels without a gearbox dictating gears (1st gear MUST come before 2nd, which MUST come before 3rd, etc...)
3. Great track record (Nissan has one of the lowest warranty-cost indexes with regards to drivetrain of any major automobile manufacturer)
4. And finally, although some people may not believe it, great towing funtionality in a 4 cylinder (when using the paddle shifters or "manual" shift mode to put the transmission into a synthesized 1st gear).
~ Hope this helps!
One thing nobody seems to have mentioned is that the CVT is mechanically simplier than these new 5 and 6 speed 'traditional' autos and therefore shouldn't cost 4 grand to get them fixed in the unlikely event they do
In our case it actually wasn't. We could open the hatch of our 2002 CR-V (Swinging Tailgate) in our garage, but couldn't open the liftgate of our 2000 Odyssey minivan; the van's hatch would hit the bottom portion of the raised garage door.
Different strokes for different folks.
Click Here to see the five-way comparison of the Forester, Vue, CR-V, Rogue, and RAV4 4-cylinder models.
Of course there have
forums like this are bad places to be making any assumptions about any car's problems or reliabilities simply because folks that have a problem with anything are going to all over these forums looking for help or maybe just to vent. Nissan has produced and sold hundreds of thousands of CVTs and at least tens of thousands of Muranos so equipped for years now. Of course there will be a few folks out there that have had problems with it and I could certainly find a lot of those folks complaining quite loudly (and often) on a Murano forum entitled 'transmission issues'.
A better source of info. on the 'success' of the CVT might be consumer statistical compilations (CR for example) and/or any records of CVT related recalls and/or TSBs. Or if Nissan were abandoning the CVT (because of warranty costs). On this basis (and others) I think you'll find that the Nissan CVT has been a remarkable success, been quite trouble free, and also something that Nissan is expanding to more and more of their vehicles including now the Rogue which essentially uses the Altima's engine/tranny - a car they sell a mere 300,000 of during the year.
BTW, I think I said that the CVT shouldbe cheaper to repair (because of its mechanical simplicity). If it isn't - I wonder if that is really a function of the 3rd party independents not being 'able' (or trained) to do it yet or that these newer 5 -6 speed + conventional trannies are dictating that the era of the $1500.00 tranny rebuild is over. Many dealers will generally farm out their tranny work to independents - if Nissan dealers are having to do it themselves (or there are few qualified to do it) it would not surprise me that it could get quite expensive.
Obviously the 'jury' must still be consideredto be out on the CVT, after all it has really only been around since 2003 in the Murano- but any implications that the tranny has been anything but a success I think is incorrect.
I don't feel like doing the search, but for anybody interested, nissan has said several times that their xtronic CVT is MORE RELIABLE than the auto trannies they used to use. even though some people have had problems with their cvt, not as many have had problems as had problems with nissans auto transmissions.
and given that they now use the CVT in most of their vehicles - you would expect them to say something different?
I think though that - within this thread - the 'traditional' electronic 5 speed in the RAV4 V6 vs. the CVT in the Rogue, I think you'll find more complainers on the Toyota websites despite that V6 being about the best engine on the planet.
There are so many folks on the road today that have no experience/training with MTs. Since the CVT and MT both offer similar fuel efficiencies, it will be interesting to see if it's the CVT or the MT that picks up in popularity as gas surges to $5.
Does anyone have experience towing with the Rogue?
For the CRV, mainly the performance is the key issue.
I think Honda should put the new 2008 Accord top 4-Cyl engine in it.
That engine has 190 horses with 162 pound ft. of torque
I think the CR-V will be more competitive with that engine will increase the CRV performance & fuel economy, also adding a lockable 4wd button and a faster wheel slippage reaction time for the all wheel drive to engage the rear wheels
That engine has 190 horses with 162 pound ft. of torque
I think the CR-V will be more competitive with that engine will increase the CRV performance & fuel economy
Increased performance wouldn't be noticed much, especially at normal operating RPMs (under 4,000). Torque is pretty much unchanged, and the peak horsepower in the 190hp version doesn't come until around 7,000 RPM.
Increased fuel economy is unlikely as well; it went unchanged from the 166hp to the 190hp Accord.
If anything I do think the 2010 CR-V will offer something like th 177hp version that is in the LX Accord, with its lower redline and power peaks.
Pluses: very good mileage; very good performance for a 4 cylinder loaded down (remember, this is NOT a Honda Accord V6 with 6Manual!), CVT worked wonderfully - with not a hitch and smooth acceleration, fair comfort for 4 adults (of course, previously we were spoiled with a Grand Caravan Sport, so not fair to compare), XM radio and bluetooth were great.
Minuses: a little cramped, and difficult to pack (what do you expect for the size), bottomed out a couple of times (we were probably maxed out on the GVWR), but no damage other than a scraped bottom of trailer hitch, wished the back seat would recline, wished for extra power plug in the back,
rogue now has over 22,000 miles since 12/07, and no problems. took it to oil change after trip and all they recommneded was replacing the air filter (which looked fine to me, so i told them i'd replace it later)
As far as the air filter goes, if you can get to it easily, replace it yourself and save the big bucks. My dealer charges $30 for it to be put in, so I bought a $9 one made by STP and put it in my Honda myself. A penny saved is a penny earned, but 2,000 pennies is lunch for two!
As far as the lockable AWD - well yes it is and no it isn't - simply because it turns itself off (reverting back to FWD only) at speed. I could see it being valuable in the snow country though along with the switchable Stability Control.
1) Rogue rides much better, not as "busy" as the RAV. Handles tighter. Wind noise seems much less at 65-70 MPH in Rogue. Road noise also. Rogue much better in crosswinds.
2) RAV accelerates faster, both from standing start and highway pass, but Rogue isn't at all lazy.
3) MPG on Rogue is better. 33 avg on first three tanks in Rogue vs 27 in 30k miles in RAV.
4) Rogue seats more comfortable, more supportive on sides and lumbar areas
5) RAV interior is more practical: less cloth, more plastic, especialy on doors; many more storage cubbies; more cupholders; Huge storage well in rear where 3rd seat would go. Rogue hasa smaller one back there with its touted dividers, which don't seem all that useful, especially if you use a load blanket.
6) AT gearbox in RAV is constantly hunting, thus annoying. Not so in Rogue. Plus the paddles up the fun factor nicely. The Rogue actually has seven forward speeds so, once it's broken in, one should be able to work the power band better in the Rogue. The Rogue gearbox feels tighter, less slushy. But it would be nice if the Paddles were in a fixed location when steering large lock. However, one can still gear up/down with the console lever. One neat trick on the CVT is that you can remain in full Auto mode and trigger the manual briefly by just pulling a paddle, after a bit it will return to "D" (auto) by itself. No need to change modes. Found that to be very handy at times.
7) Rear visibility has glitches in both, although at different spots. Side visibility from Rogue is better. The non-removeable rear headrests are a serious flaw in the Rogue, IMO. Doesn't bother us since we have rear seats down 99% of the time. But when they're up rear visibility is seriously compromised. If that wasn't the case the rear visibility could be a deal-breaker for us.
8) The way the CVT holds speed downhill is useful. HAve yet to try it in crawl mode to compare with RAV's hill brake.
9) Service people seem more friendly with Nissan around these parts.
10) Ground clearance slightly better in Rogue.
11) Audio system in Rogue sounds better.
12) Can tow a bit more with RAV.
13) Mirror adjustment control location is more user friendly on Rogue, but the VSC and AWD controls are better located on the RAV.
14) The OEM tires on Rogue (Conti 4x4 Contact) are not as good as RAV (loud, only 6/32 tread on the Rogue's Contis at 19 miles!).
15) The conventional (vertical) hatch on the Rogue is more convenient. Sounds like that's going to change next model year.
16) RAV comes stock with full-size spare. Rogue has temp. However, you can change that by removing the aft storage locker and replacing the donut. But that does give up that small partitioned storage bin mentioned above.
17) Am not sure yet if the Intelligent Key is a boon or not. However, the price to replace one seems less expensive than the RAV or even a Honda FIT.
18) No locking fuel door. However, the RAV's flimsy door won't stop anyone.
Both are good, small utilitarian rides, but we feel the Rogue offers better value for the price which around here is substantially less than RAV.
We realize much of the above is subjective, but that's our $0.02. HTH.
Comparing the CVT in the Freestyle vs Rogue would be misleading, IMO. We found that the Ford has little downhill breaking, sluggish start off the line, no decent manual mode, and much noiser. Our 08 Rogue is much more friendly, quieter (yes it's a smaller engine), more flexible, much more fun (with the paddles and seven speeds).
How is headroom in the Rogue? with/without sunroof?
No problem here, but we're only 5'10". I compared both with and w/o sunroofs during test drives and didn't notice any blatant difference.
Yeah, if you consider an additional 2,000 pounds a "bit" :P
The Rogues 1,500 pound tow rating rules out all but the tiniest campers...even my smallish pop-up camper is nearly 1,400 pounds empty.
I was wondering about your comment on the rear door and the possible change to a side hinge. Is there more information on possible changes for 2009??
As for FE penalty, I got 28 mpg last weekend on a 400+ mile trip.
Thanks
Shopped the RAV and was not impressed with the 4 cylinder at all and also that the V6 was going to cost me about 5 grand more - optioned out as my Rogue is. The Rogue is surprisingly quick even if it doesn't quite keep up with the RAV V6 although the CVT has required some adjustment on my part. However, for this type of vehicle, I thought the Rogue more fun to drive than the RAV with more flexibility in the interior (passenger seat folds and all seats flat for a really long/flat cargo area) and overall a nicer interior (mine is perforated leather). Besides the CRV, also considered the CX7 which was going to be even less expensive than the Rogue but the turbo 4 was rough and I was scared away by CR reliability reports. Power, fit and finish, and fun to drive quotient quite good though.
It will be interesting to see how well the RAV V6 continues to sell, many folks will buy a 4 banger just because they think it must be much more economical, something not necessarily the case when you talking about the Toyota 2GR.