Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Tiguan vs. Forester vs. CR-V
kr5
Member Posts: 3
in Volkswagen
I'm in the market for a cute ute and have narrowed my search to the Tiguan, Forester and CV-R. I had been a loyal VW owner since the early 70s but early transmission problems in my last 2 Jettas convinced me to buy a 2003 Forester last time around. The Forester, which I bought new, has been rock solid dependable but offers a white toast driving experience. Test driving the CV-R left me with the same impression. Then I made the mistake of test driving a Tiguan a few weeks ago on a whim and fell in love all over again. This car feels like a Lotus next to the Forester and CV-R. Someone talk me out of this! The Tiguan SE's a good $4000 to $5000 more than a comparably equipped Forester or CV-R, is probably not as reliable as its Japanese counterparts, and the VW dealer doesn't seem to appreciate the economic imperative of offering a recession-busting deal. Should I spring for the sexy Tiguan or stay with the Old Reliables? I should mention that I typically keep cars for ten years or longer. (I'm holding on to my '03 Subie.) Also, any word on VW offering a 0% APR on the Tiguan in the near future to even their pricing with Subaru and Honda? I'd like to buy in the next month or two. Thanks much!
Tagged:
0
Comments
Luckily all the break/fixes were done while the Forester was under warranty, and ‘knock on wood’ the transmission is still working fine. When I started researching the 2009 Forester I was shocked to find that I was not the only one with head gasket problems, and that Subaru has had problems with the Turbo engines in the 2009 Forester XT. Subaru had to put a “Stop Sell” bulletin to the dealers as these engines were not even lasting 500 miles before the engine makes a horrible noise and seizes. Something to do with piston rings not being within spec from one supplier. Entire engines have to be replaced.
In short I haven’t had that “Subaru Reliability” experience with my Forester, and have not been impressed with what I’ve read so far on the 2009 Forester. Body integrity/Paint durability/Interior material quality, all seem better in our older Foresters then what people are commenting of the 2009 model.
I once considered a CRV, but even paid more for my Forester, once I found that the CRV could not come close to the Forester when it came to deep snow. This winter it proved its merits admirably, as I drove around a stuck CRV and RAV4 as their “Real time All Wheel Drive” or “AWD” could not get them out of knee high snow that the “full time awd” in the Forester did.
The Haldex “4Motion” of the Tiguan seems to be the next best thing. It’s not exactly like the Subaru’s, but far superior to the CRV’s/ RAV4’s/ Outlander’s. So far I haven’t seen a CRV, Outlander, or Rav4 that is capable of this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDFgCBiNg-Q&feature=related
The price of the Tiguan keeps me reevaluating the competition. The new Forester for me would be like my old Forester with a new bigger body. To me the new Forester looks like it copied that basic shape from the Mitsubishi Outlander. The Outlander is also a contender as it has the most features/content for the price. I’ve read that VW can’t make the Tiguan fast enough for their European/World Markets, and the profits that they make abroad are far greater that what VW makes selling the Tiguan here in N.A. That might explain why dealer are reluctant to haggle on price.
I’ve got 5 months before I need to replace my Forester, and all the popular comparison vehicles except the Tiguan will force me to make a compromise on awd traction/extreme weather capability that the Forester has. I too hope that the car buying market will improves favorably with better financing offers, or incentives from VW.
For some economic/business reason .most likely the “Keep profits as high as possible” business plan. VW has decided to keep North American consumer away from the most popular options, and configurations that are available to the Tiguan for the rest of the world.
Is VW afraid that the Tiguan will become too popular here in N.A? It’s like we are getting punished here, or are in some kind of marketing experiment. The more I researched the Tiguan, the more frustrated I got. There are so many great options, features, combination of options that consumers in other countries can choose from.
When I asked for these popular option combinations at my VW dealer I got a swift “No!” as an answer.
-Can I get the Tiguan with the Diesel engine with 4motion and a 6 speed manual?
-How about the Diesel engine?
-Can I get the Tiguan with the Dual charged engine, the off-road package, and 6 speed manual?
- Dual Charged engine?
-Off road Package?
- Auto Parking feature (like Lexus has)?
What’s going on here? Is VW so backed up in Tiguan orders that we here in N.A. are forgotten? Sure the Tier2 Bin5 emission standard we have is tough, but VW has a 2L Diesel in the Jetta that meets that standard and could drop right into the Tiguan.
there are those who lead, and those who follow and you cant compare them.
while the Tiguan is riding in the future train with all the cool cars having new and creative feature and without jeopardizing elegance, performance and comfort, Honda is bragging about how the new, yet old, featureless CR-V is reliable.
Honda and Toyota will now play the waiting game, and when the new features which are present in todays cool cars are tested on German and American cars, Honda and Toyota will include them as standard five years from now and start claiming again that they are the most reliable.
how pathetic.
I am pretty sure that Honda was the first to have a small cross over SUV.
I am pretty sure Honda had ABS standard across the product line way before VW.
I am pretty sure Honda was the first to have VSC standard across the product line before VW.
I am pretty sure that Honda had EBD way before VW.
I am pretty sure Honda had independant suspension at all 4 corners while VW was still using torsion beam from 1937.
Sounds like VW is playing catch up here.
As to this "marvelous automatic"... what man drives automatic? :confuse:
The 2009 XT problem was not piston rings, but disintegration of copper con rod bearing shell, and those engines have been replaced:
"... FHI have identified the problem as abnormal wear on con rod big end bearings..."
http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/f88/subaru-issues-turbo-stop-sale-certai- n-08-09-models-31757/index5.html#post372840
"... Turbo Engine Stop Sale checking Procedure.
Engine Screening Procedure Two... A) If there are copper particles larger that 1 mm in the material residue, the engine is damaged.... It may be necessary to clean the particles to determine if they are copper. Copper is reddish in color..."
http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/f88/subaru-issues-turbo-stop-sale-certai- n-08-09-models-31757/index10.html#post381869dels
The Forester has the same drivetrain as the Outback, which has been selected as SUV of the year:
http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/suv/112_0912_2010_suv_of_the_year_winner/ind- ex.html
The Tiguan seems out of the Forester's class, more like an Acura RDX. More upscale, luxurious, refined, and expensive. Less practical, less capacity and tow rating, worse mileage on premium fuel only, and probably less reliable.
have you sat in a Tiguan? You must have missed the part about the chassis and interior components being the same as a Golf or Jetta. That's like saying the RDX is based on a Honda Civic. It's not, more like a TSX. The CR-V however is.
It might be closer to the RDX in terms of performance. But's it would be more comparable to a Honda CR-V with the RDX engine. Basically with a Tiguan, you're paying a lot for the 2.0T motor, but not getting all the bells and whistles, apce and quality you expect frm a car with that drivetrain.
The Tiguan would be more comparable to the other compact SUV's in it's class if it had the 5 cylinder engine out of the Jetta. The 2.0T places it in a strange class of it's own, somewhat like the V6 RAV 4.
I hate to break it to you, but RDX is based on the Civic. No matter what the first impression may be, it is just a CR-V in better clothes.
There are no other vehicle in the US that is based on the TSX, which is the global Accord platform. The US Accord is different and is sold as Inspire elsewhere.
Both Tiguan and CR-V/RDX are lifted compacts underneath.
http://wikicars.org/en/Anti-Lock_Brakes_(ABS)
and surely was not the first to use :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_stability_control
and still does NOT have ESP as standard while VW does !
i dont know who told you that but have clearly been scammed into buying a Honda...
Tiguan has a Turbocharged 4 Cyl, economic and yet powerful enough to drive it forward while CRV is lamely slow.
Tiguan has enough torque while CRV has to make engine noise even in an alley
Tiguan has a panoramic power roof and power shade while CR-V doesnt
Tiguan has a Tiptronic 6 speed while the CRV doesnt
Tiguan has decent leather inside while CRV has cheap interior
Tiguan has Heated external mirrors while CRV doesnt
Tiguan has Multy adjustable memory front seats while CRV doesnt
Tiguan has perimiter Lighting while...
Tiguan has an auto dimming rear view mirror ...
so who's gotta do catch up now? Honda will now play the waiting card, when those technologies are 5 years old and cheap enough for them, they will then introduce them as standard and claim super reliability. thats actually the same definition as a : "Scam"
as for :
"As to this "marvelous automatic"... what man drives automatic? "
yes some men find the need to keep their hands on the stick, maybe that gives them the feeling of being "Big", as for me, i know i am and do not feel the need to prove it, and who knows maybe im a woman?
so besides the sexist bitter flavor of you comment, it fails to deliver any comedic value.
ESP is VSA/VSC in Honda talk, kind of like Pohtatoe Potahtoe debate...Honda CR-V has been offered with VSA/VSC as standard equipment across the model line since 2005. (WRONG!!! Try again!)
Honda CR-V has been offered with heated outside mirrors since 2005 on the SE model in the US. (WRONG!!!! Try again!)
Auto dimming mirror has been optional for quite a few years now.
I could spend all day proving your wrong, but...
Tiguan has a Turbocharged 4 Cyl, economic and yet powerful enough to drive it forward while CRV is lamely slow.
Tiguan has enough torque while CRV has to make engine noise even in an alley
I think you answered your own attempt at comedy, see bolded edit of your original statement.
yes some men find the need to have the high horsepower, maybe that gives them the feeling of being "Big", as for me, i know i am and do not feel the need to prove it, and who knows maybe im a woman?
She liked the forester (non-turbo) because it rode a bit higher, and the visibility was a touch better, and i think the AWD drive system is better (i.e. always awd, vs. honda's realtime, kicks-in when you need it 4wd). also thought the perforated leather of the forester was much nicer than the honda leather.
She ended up getting the CRV because of several factors:
- she keeps her cars a long time - she traded her 98 civic w/ 60k miles on it and got $4000 from the dealer, so in 10 yrs, i think the crv would have better resale than the forester
- she knows and trusts honda, even though our siblings have 2 subarus that have been just as reliable as the civic.
- convenience - there are 3 honda dealerships on the way into work for her, so dropping the car off would be a snap, vs. the closest subie dealer to her is only 7 miles away, but in the opposite direction of her work.
these forums are great.
Tiguan has a state of the art 4 Cyl 200hp turbocharged engine while CRV does not !
Tiguan has a state of the art tiptronic 6 speed transmission, CRV does not
...
and the "horse power comment" is kind of lame, it was funny the first time though...
but i think you are just making up stuff now to cover your pointless arguments, nobody talked about "HIGH horse power". Tiguan has ENOUGH horse power to drive it forward with a decent torque while CRV suffers from a severe lack of power, thats a conclusion that anyone who drove both cars can easily draw, and that has nothing to do with gender by the way.
the 09/10 crv is but an illusion of an SUV, made for an audience who cant afford a real SUV, so honda is giving them a car that looks like an SUV but acts like a cheap econo bottom of the line car, with cheap interior and accessories, a weak engine coupled with a large mini van like body...
At least CR-V's go off road, and people have proven their off-road capability. In fact, at the last Oshawa meet, a 1998 CR-V, the "severely" underpowered 127 hp CR-V, pulled a Jeep Wranger out of a mud hole.
I have yet to see a Tiguan or Toureg join any of the off-roading events, even though I see plenty of them on the road. Maybe it is the VW buyer who just likes to pretend something they are not? Dare I say poseur?
As to the "state of the art engine" you just have no clue, do you? Honda has been making race car engines for years. Until recently, Honda was suplying engines to McLarren, and still dominates Indi race circuits. Their racing technology is used in street going vehicles within few years. When was the last time you saw a VW powered race car win any competition, or even participate in it?
Honda developed the stratified fuel charge which allows Honda engines to achieve air to fuel ratio higher than normally required for stoiochemical burn. It was fist used on Honda CVCC in 1972, which later became the Civic. The CVCC technology allowed Honda vehicles to surpass the 40 mpg fuel economy without the use of hybrid techonology in the 80's.
The development of 12 valve and then 16 valve engines in the late 70's coupled with CVCC yielded higher horsepower per liter of displacement engines that competition.
I know, I had an '85 Civic that went 250,000 miles before I sold it (it has over 400,000 miles now, still driven daily). It was reguraly getting 40-45 mpg.
The 1991 Jetta, on the other hand, failed to break the 120,000 miles. It required 3 water pumps, 2 power steering pumps, all of the Bosch Jetronic Fuel injection sensors to be replaced. This was a simple 8 valve engine with a cast iron block, same design since the inception of the internal combustion engines.
Honda perfected the Valve timing and adjustable lift engine techonology in 1991, and put it on 2 cars. One at the top of the Honda line up, Acura NSX, and the other at the bottom, in a Honda Civic VX. Which made their engines have dual personality. High fuel efficincy, stability at low RPM's, and high revving high horsepower at the other end of the spectrum, all combined in one engine, and a reliable system.
The Tiptronic in the Tugian is not the DSG that is offered in the GTI and Audi. It is just a fancy word for a slush box for poseur boy racer who can't manage to work with 3 pedals. You want fancy, drive stick. No computer can bean the manual's prescision and reliability. No automatic can predict the driver's intentions and select the porper gear in ADAVANCE. All they do is react to what has happened. Even DSG are REACTIVE systems, not ACTIVE!
I guess to some a fancy word and flashing lights mean state of the art, and to some, like me, the undelying techonolgy that reliably works and provides real world proof are the state of the art.
Enjoy your flashing lights. :P
That is soo rich....... :sick:
Winner by TKO: blueiedgod!......
That is soo rich.......
Winner by TKO: blueiedgod!......
Thanks.
My post above yours has a statment that is not 100% true, which I did on purpose.
Carlitos seems to be an automotive expert by categorically declaring what state of the art is, and what defines automotive superiority. This is a test, if he responds back with rebuttle of the flawed statement I made, I may believe in his ability to judje vehicular content, otherwise.... he should just go back under the bridge.
i agree with you that Tiptoronic is a fancy thing invented by Porsche (from Germany!) and adopted by racing cars, thats why, and among many other things, its on the Tiguan and nowhere to be found on the CRV
and yes DSG is on VW cars too and not on Honda cars, why? because Honda is now playing its waiting game, when the technology will become cheper 10 years from now, they will integrate it as standard, throw a dumb commercial tailored for dumb people, and guys like you will be blatantly bragging all over the internet about how honda was the first to have that technology as standard !
i also agree with you that honda makes excellent racing engines even for Formula 1, however, i think you are very selective in your knowledge, you seem to only know things that will support your choice and explicitly ignore the other facts that may burst your bubble, for example, as a reasonable non biased person, i know that honda makes racing car engines. i dont deny that and i actually love honda's racing engines, but i also know that those engines have nothing to do with the engine inside the CRV nor any of those engines inside their line of cheap mainstream car. i also know that honda has their luxury line called Accura, with fully featured line of cars and with much higher price tags and with lower reliability because of the newer technologies used (same as most German cars and many luxury American's). so when honda and toyota wanna compete with VW and others in the luxury market, they make Lexuss and Accuras, but when they wanna sell cheap for cheap they sell honda's and toyotas.
for the rest of your wall of text, all i could read is: "honda did this..." "honda did that ..." blah blah blah... who cares about the history of your country? the matter of fact is that now honda is selling el-cheapo cars for the rich wanna be who cant afford real fancy cars with serious gear. the type of person who can make such ridiculously insane comments as yours.
and at the end, CRV will still remain a cheap car, made out of cheap materials, with a noisy bumpy ride, with a cheap underpowered engine, with a mini van like look and with at least 5 years old options and inside ergonomics.
we may argue for ages about which is better, automatic or stick transmission, thats why Tiguans are available with either one, yes ! you got to choose, while CRV does NOT offer you the Tiptronic
and if you knew anything about racing transmissions as you claim, you would have known that high speed racing cars all have steering wheel 2 button based transmission... and btw, even honda that you have been praising for ages now uses Tiptronic under different names: ( iShift, S-matic, MultiMatic, SportShift) in many of its vehicles and its high end sport vehicles
and thanks, of course i will enjoy the flashing lights, the sweet turbocharged 200hp engine and the Tiptronic 6speed transmission, i will also enjoy, the well designed look, the rSAP Bluetooth phone system, the power panoramic moon roof, the self retracting side mirrors, the fancy leather memory seats and the comfy, quiet and safe ride
while im doing that, enjoy your shovel ware.
so as you can see, many people think they are smart while in reality they are at least bellow average, and its those kind of people who actually buy those kind of half facts from a high school drop out salsmen
one other thing is that Hondas and Toyotas all have cheap standard plasticish stuff that looks all the same... and that why their parts are cheap and even the 5years protections plans are cheap. in other simpler words, nothing goes wrong because there is nothing !
i see where youre comming from with your logic but it is a flawed logic, maintenance cost is hardly an indicator of anything unless you compare two homogenous things and with having a complete set of data.
based on that same logic, a Ferrari is a no good car because of its extremely high maint cost. while based on a correct logic, the high maint cost on the ferrari coluld be an indicator of either :
1-the car sucks (as a simpler solution)
2-or maybe the car has more expensive stuff on it? is delocalized? has turbocharger? has more expensive tires? has more expensive fancier hand crafted leather? has much much more electronics? has better more expensive suspension? has ahigher end of everything?
Now the Subaru Forester looking like a station wagon, I will wholeheartedly agree with.
Rather than resorting to having cars assembled in third world countries (VW's are made in Mexico!!!), and have really CHEAP components that fail prematurely.
The inferior component and inferior quality of assembly, even if charged premium pricing for, does not make a premium product. I am sorry, but such are the truths, and the VW's market share agrees with that.
But, as I have said before, there is a difference in preception. To some a gold plated piece of dog poop would look like gold bar because it is shiny. And to others, it will be obvious that it is just gold plated piece of dog poop.
As to offering this "marvelous" boy racer poseur transmission, Honda offers it on a $14,000 Honda Fit, and has been offering since the day it was brought over to the US market in 2005.
Does VW offer this "marvelous" transmission in a $14,000 VW? This just destroyed your theory that Honda does not offer "latest and greatest." It does, and it does is for less because it knows how to build cars, rather coat dog poop with gold.
The Formula 1 tansmissions are not the Tiptronic you have in the Tiguan. They don't have a torque converter.
Honda's engine developments transfer directly into the street going vehicles wihin 2-3 years. Whether you want to believe it or not, but the current engines in Honda/Acura lines up, are the direct derivatives from the racing engines few years back. Yes, they are not identical, I agree to that. But, I also don't think there is a market for small displacement V6 engines that run at 15,000 RPM.
Now, back to the 200 hp engine. When do you actually realize all that power? Are you racing from light to light? Are you driving on the autobahn? Chances are that by the time your turbo spools up, whoever you were raicing has already stopped at the next light.
Maybe VW is just so over bloated that it needs the help of the turbo to get all that masss going?
As to Honda and Toyota having Acura and Lexus as higher value brands, VW has Audi and Bugatti. Which goes back to my previous post that contained a misinformation that an "astute expert in all automotive" such as your self failed to catch. Audi's Quattro system has been around since the 80's and have been used in rally circuits, successfull. But, I guess you are no expert after all. Just a troll.
P.S.
Comparo 2010 Tiguan SEL vs 2010 CR-V EX-L
MSRP * $33,215 $27,745
Invoice * $30,919 $25,805
Engine 2.0L I-4 200 HP 2.4L I-4 180 HP
Transmission 6-spd Tiptronic w/OD 5-spd auto w/OD
Fuel Economy City 18.0 mpg 21.0 mpg
Fuel Economy Highway 24.0 mpg 27.0 mpg
Bumper to Bumper Warranty (months/miles) 36/36,000 36/36,000
6-spd Tiptronic w/OD 5-spd auto w/OD
Battery 480 amp with run down protection, 410 amp
Axle Ratio 3.69 4.50
Fuel Type premium unleaded regular unleaded
Fuel Tank 16.8 gal. 15.3 gal.
Exhaust stainless steel with chrome tailpipe finish stainless steel
Drive Type full-time 4MOTION all wheel RealTime automatic full-time four-wheel
Locking Hub Control permanent permanent
Traction Control ABS & driveline ABS & driveline
Seating Capacity 5 5
Front Seat Type bucket bucket
Heated Front Seats driver and front passenger heated-cushion heated- driver and front passenger heated-cushion, driver
Front Headrests adjustable adjustable
Front Armrests center driver and passenger,
Front Driver Seat Direction Controls (8-way power) (8-way power)
Front Passenger Seat Direction Controls 6-way 4-way
Rear Seats 60-40 split-bench 60-40 split-bench
Rear Headrests adjustable adjustable
Rear Armrests center with pass-thru center
Memory driver seat N/A
Seat Trim leather leather
Door Trim leatherette N/A
Headliner full cloth full cloth
Floor Trim carpet carpet
Floor Mats carpeted front & rear carpeted front & rear
Dashboard Insert metal-look metal-look
Gear Shift Knob Trim leather leather
Sunroof Available:express open/close express open/close
Vanity Mirrors dual illuminated dual illuminated
Rearview Mirror auto-dimming day-night day-night
Glove Box locking locking
Dome Light fade fade
Reading Lights front & rear front
Floor Console full partial
Overhead Console full with storage, mini with storage, conversation mirror
Cup Holder front and rear front and rear
Instrument Panel Storage covered bin covered bin
Dashboard Storage dashboard storage N/A
Seatback Storage 2 2
Refrigerated Box glovebox N/A
Door Bins dual dual
Rear Door Bins rear door bins rear door bins
Cargo Concealed Storage cargo concealed storage N/A
Cargo Floor Trim carpeted carpeted
Trunk Lid Trim plastic plastic
Cargo Cover rigid rigid
Looks like Tiguan is a "ME TOO" just 13 years too lat
I wanted something fun to drive, reasonable on gas, room for 4 and a baby stroller in the back and awd. So, here's an acura-aholic take.
Acura RDX - Wonderwoman lost her shield and put it on the RDX. Quality truck, fast, met a lot of my want list, but the styling and poor fuel economy left it at the dealer - you have no idea how hard it was to leave acura, but my god, that new TL is gawd awful looking. It may drive great, but no car should take long to get use to.
BMW X3 - ummmm 55k plus tax. I was born at night, but not last night! Nice truck to drive, but lease was $950, without all the options I wanted. Enough said.
Audi Q5 - great truck and was first on my list. Nothing bad to say, except that the residual value was very low and leasing rates were terrible. Plus add navigation, sline package and audi drive select and you back at 55k. Sorry, 62 grand with tax. I'd rather walk. Base model in canada is 43k with no sunroof.
Nissan Murano - 48k. Boring to drive for me and styling was like a floating egg for me. I'm sure it's a good vehicle, but you just know something is not right after a test drive. I would not put my 800 bucks a month on the table.
VW tiquan - cute, good qaulity inside, heavy like a tank, no space in the back,so this was off the list. I think VW should have made it a bit larger and less bug looking. But, no doubt a good truck.
Ford escape, equinox - would rather walk after test driving. Dealership staff was terrible and I felt like I was in 1982. From acura to this, was too far of a dive off the cliff.
Lexus and Volvo - both polar opposites. Lexus rx350 was gorgeous. Like driving a quiet living room on the hwy. However, no road feel and felt very very soft. Great vehicle, just was not for me. Volvoxc60 had the worst navigation i've ever tried. Some weird toggle by the steering wheel. It was like every other volvo I've every test driven - bland drive with great seats. Heavy steering and my wife said it was like driving a tank (she's the boss...so, volvo was out).
Subaru forester - I read the motor trend review, ajac and thought I should look at this. I've never stepped foot in a subaru product ever. I drove out of the parking lot in a dark grey xt limited with navigation and multimedia pachage. I called my wife and said "this &*^*ing" subaru is good. I went home and read every criticism about and praise about the truck and went back for a second test drive. Ok 4 gears instead of 5? I can't tell. In fact, I never really knew. Fast as the RDX I drove and I thought seats were comfortable and great suspension, handling. I went around a few pot holes and said...I think this is the car for me. I sat on it for another week, drove the RDX again and went back to Subaru and leased a 2010 Subaru forester XT with nav/multimedia. Absolutely freakishly great ride, fast and takes the corners and bumps very well. I leased this truck at 800 bucks above cost for 575 tax in with 1500 due at signing and I am loving this truck. I test drove a wrx sti and will get one of these in the summer. Service was excellent and I can't believe how great this drives. 4 speed automatic drives amazing and to me, the dash is very tightly finished and personally, this navigation is 10x better than my tsx had.
For those that want a fun truck, with the best overall ride and amazing awd - I would not hesitate.
new to the subaru family and I think I will be here for a very long time!
I'm going to tell you my story. Some of you may remember me when I had the 2007 Mazda CX-7 and was a regular contributor to that forum on Edmunds. Sadly, I was involved in a nasty accident about 3 weeks ago. The CX-7 was totalled and I only had a very minor neck injury (strained muscle, pull). Up until then, I still very much enjoyed that ride, loved it, in fact and now wistfully remember what it was. When compared to other cars in it's day, it had strengths and weaknesses, but I still loved it!
Anyway, had to go shopping. I've always relied on Consumer Reports to guide me. CR is usually quite accurate in their assessments. But I also read Road & Track, Car & Driver and Motortrend, for their views. I'm 6'4", so fit is crucial. Form, fit, value and good looks guide me, just as it does for many of you. Initially, I concentrated on Honda, Toyota, Nissan. I've never cared for Subaru - just didn't like it's looks. I've had Subaru before, but the last time I had one, it was a disaster on 4 wheels - left a permanent bad taste in my mouth.
Up until recently, I never considered VW. VW reputation in terms of reliability, as reported by CR, has been dismal, until recently...The Tiguan is apparently starting to garner notice at CR and for the first time, elevated it to the "recommended" status. "The Tiguan straddles the line between the less-expensive Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4 and upscale models like the Acura RDX among small SUVs. Based on the Golf and Passat, the Tiguan did well in our tests. It is quiet, offers a roomy rear seat, and has excellent fit and finish. Handling is agile and secure, and the ride is comfortable" The only downs that CR noted was "premium fuel, price". But the SEL, fully loaded was still quite competitive in terms of cost. I got a really good deal from the dealer and the 3 years of no-cost maintenance, is icing on the cake.
Well, Tiguan started looking pretty good to me. Went to the VW website, since I knew nothing about it. Starting to look better. Finally went to test drive it. I got hooked. Now, keep in mind I test drove the Rav-4, CRV, Santa Fe and oh yeah, Outback and Forrester. Yawn! The Tiguan is luxurious on the inside, to me, it smart-looking and offered features that are found in higher priced models, that none of the others offered.
It's got plenty of punch for me (hell, if any of you drove the CX-7, you know all about that!). In fact, when I tromped on the accelerator, I had to hold on for dear life! Caught me off-guard! :P Very nimble. I absolutely love the panoramic moon roof! Sweet!
CR says the RAV4 accelerates faster. Ok, good for it! I don't race cars, so who cares? Toyota, Honda, Subaru, Nissan, Hyundai all make quality products. I've owned all at one time or another! I can't agree more, but as of today, IMHO, the Tiguan goes one better.
Vince.
we are coming out of a 2007 CX7 lease, and want to go for something different. i did stop by the Mazda dealer and check out the new CX7, but the navigation (which we feel is now a crutch rather than a luxury as it was 3 yrs ago) now is a small 3" screen way up in the dash. i like the engine, plenty of acceleration for us non-racers, but why not play the field. it is a deal though.
right now i am between the Tiguan and want to still test drive the Outback (its looks don't bother me at all). what i can't justify is the Tiguan SEL price tag. i like the sunroof (we had a Mini and loved its sunroof, we never opened the CX7 sunroof), and wish we could do the leather- although the cloth looks/feels nicer than most. with the new sign then drive program i wonder what the leases will be like? the Tuguan cargo room does seem smaller, but passenger compartment seems decent.as for acceleration and handling, i did not get a good impression, since the dealer i went with took me out only on side roads
the CRV never interested me, as the engine was pretty dismal. i've also driven the Murano, and with the CVT the dealer compared it to the RX rather than the FX35, which is a monster of a SUV (one can dream....). Rogue- forget about it.
any other opinions on car options or Trim packages for the TIguan?
thanks, cs
As for the trim, I like my creature comforts, so opted for the SEL and the panoramic moon roof. Shop through the web and get quotes. I probably saved $2k just doing that and then I started haggling. Make the dealer fight for your wallet. Timing is good right now, since everyone knows the auto industry is struggling. It's a buyer's market right now. As far as choosing between the Tiguan and the Outback, go with your gut instinct. Price, features, availability, reliability. For me, if something catches my eye and it's one of those "I've got to have that!" then my wallet comes out. That's why I chose the CX-7 when it was first introduced 3 years ago. It's styling and features screamed "Buy me!" :P
Vince.
As for interior quality. I sat in a couple of Tiguans with cloth interior and was suprised that the poor quality of meterials in a $30k+ vehicle.
The CR-V is also mush roomier, has fewer blind spots and a much larger cargo area.
The CR-V doesn't pretend to be a perfomance SUV. It's a practicle, economical compact SUV with adequate power, lots of room a good ride and good fuel economy.
Just like all VW's the Tiguan is more of a niche vehcile. Don't get me wrong, I almost bought a Jetta TDI sportwagen but the nearest VW dealer is 100 miles away and VW's don;t have the best reputation or statistical data in terms of reliability.
Anyway, I'm most impressed with the technological saavy, not to mention the feisty attitude, of those of you who offered an opinion on the relative merits of these vehicles. I finally made a decision and bit the bullet in May and bought --- drum roll, please --- the Subaru Forester.
My take on this car was pretty much expressed by gdoc in his/her post, so I won't get into a lot of gushy detail here. Suffice it to say that the Forester's looks, performance and quality impressed me more than the CV-R's, and offered a bit more exclusivity than the CV-R, which seems to be the car of choice for young Moms everywhere (I'm a middle-aged guy) and looks a bit dated to me.
I owned a Honda Prelude years ago, and found this brand to be very trustworthy, so it was a pretty close call between the CV-R and the Forester. In fact, I nearly bought a CV-R in 2003, when I bought my first Forester. The new Forester just looks better to me. The CV-R looks like a rolling egg, and the Tiguan looks like a gym-going Rabbit. Purely subjective, I know.
The Tiguan's superb handling nearly turned my head, but I've been burned too much by VW (see my February post) to trust this brand any time in the near future. In any case, I'm not sure whether handling and performance trumps reliability and functionality in this type of vehicle. I mean, if sport car-like handling and high-tech performance are important, why not just buy a CC or Jetta or a Jetta wagon if you need the cargo space? The cost of the Tiguan exceeded the Forester (I bought a loaded 2.5X Limited with VDC) by over $5000, and the Tiguan requires premium fuel. For a CUV? Really? Case closed!
VW market share is smaller than Honda's, thats true, and same goes for BMWs market share and same for Acura's market share and same for all luxury cars market shares, that doesn't prove nor disapprove anything. your market share logic is flawed by definition.
in simpler words : market share is NOT directly proportional to quality.
Nop ! besides the fact of being racist, i don't see how your comment is related to quality, VWs are not made in Mexico (new beetle and Jetta are the only 2 models made at a Mexico Plant), you have either been misinformed or are actively lying as a last resort to support your theory.
If you have been misinformed, then as i advised you before, you should watch TV commercial with a better critical eye and obviously shouldn't believe everything they tell you on TV, and in case you are actively making up stories and stating half facts, aka lying, then there is no point in keeping arguing with you because it is clear that you have no more material to bring to the table, and that is why you are getting creative on the subject.
and for your own information, there is (again) no proven study that relates a car birth place and its quality, claiming that car made in Ohio is better than a car made in southern California is ridiculous.
i don't think there is a need to discuss the "dog poop" theory of yours because it is... well.. stinky.
the last thing is the feature by feature comparison of the CR-V vs Tiguan, you somehow jumped all the features that are on Tiguan and nowhere to be found on any CR-V model (like auto folding mirrors and panoramic roof), that is actually kind of pathetic, but i believe it makes you feel more comfortable. furthermore, that doesn't show the cheap make of the CR-V, you have to get into one to experience the plastic-ish and fake like leather design, the stupidly weak engine and the noisy ride...
as for myself, i never claimed, said or communicated that i was or i am an expert of any kind, but i believe that you let your imagination loose again and assumed that, the same way as you assumed many wrong things related to this subject.
i suggest you assume less, post less and read more.
make your opinion based on real facts not based on half facts and banal commercials.
These aren't opinons, they are facts.
I'm not saying that the Tiguan is a bad vehcile. I'm sure it's great on the road, but it's not nearly as good of a value for most buyers. For many, it's just too small.
The difference in cargo room and rear seat room is a pretty wide gap. It's like comparing a Civic Si to an Accord 4cyl and complaining that the Accord is too slow. They simply have different design goals.
Actually, I listed all the OPTIONAL features, but Edmunds limits the length of posts. But, if you add the OPTIONAL features that you boast about, it adds another $5000 to the already inflated price of Jetta with high clearance. Now, we have a $10,000 gap between the vehicles in comparison.
Is $10,000 worth the 20 HP boost in power? NO!!!!
Is $10,000 worth the electric folding mirrors? NO!!!!
Is $10,000 worth the panoramic sunroof? NOOO!!!! I barely use mine, why would I want two sunroovs? And how often do you lay on your back in the car to enjoy the sunroof, let alone 2 of them (one is fixed anyway)?
Is $10,000 worth the PERCIEVED luxury factor? Not in my book!!!!
What the $10,000 more will buy you is more often visits to the dealership during the warranty, and more frequent out of pocket repairs.
Besides, if I wanted to, I can add eletric folding mirrors to my CR-V for about $100 in parts. That is the beauty of standardized global platform. I wanted heated mirrors, which were not available on the EX, so, I just bought replacement glass from the SE, and plugged them in. Took me less than an hour to add a feature I wanted, without having to pay for the features I did not care about.
You may call me racist, or liar, but the fact remains, country of assembly AFFECTS the quality of the product.
The work ethics vary from culture to culture, and that is a FACT! Work ethic in Japan is different than US, which is different than in Mexico, which is different from Germany. No matter how much you candy coat the subject to be politically correct, the fact still remains.
Given the choices, I will buy a product made in the USA or Japan, over same product made in Mexico, China. Call me racist, but it is my money, and I want a product that will not fail on me.
So if better gas milage is important, pick the CR-V; if you really want off-road capability, pick the CR-V; if you want more storage space, pick the CR-V; and if you want more horsepower and a more faster engine, more torque, pick the CR-V. But if you want a really safe vehicle, that protects your loved ones, go with an alternative.
And Mr. CR-V, if you really want to trash me and carlitos for our pinions, then go ahead. I've already made my choice and absolutely love it! The CR-V just doesn't measure up where it REALLY matters. :P
http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr111809.html
Vince.
The reason the CR-V was not awarded top safety pick was because of a new test added this year involving a roof strength test. Its' a static test, not a dynamic real world test. The SUV's that passed were more "blocky" or smaller, making the strength of the roof proportionally stronger. In most all roll-overs however, the vehicle does not land squarely on the roof or with a force greater than it's weight. I challenge to validity of the test in terms of it's relevance ot real world crashes. If there was data that showed that occupants of CR-V suffered a greater frequency of injuries, then I would support the test. I do not believe there is any data to support that.
I suspect those hat did well in th tests did so out of luck or because of a more "boxy" design, not because they intentionally designed the vehcile with this test in mind.
It's possible that you could design a vehcile that passes this test, but add less desirable traits such as blindspots and a higher center of gravity, making an accident more likely.
Does Honda need to adress this? I think so. On the next redesign, I suspect they will incorporate additional roof supports or a modified design.
SO are the Tiguan and Forester safer... yes... if you are in a rollover accident in which the vehcile becomes airborne and lands with most all of it's weight on the roof. This is probably the lowest percentage type of collison there is and is the liekly the least likely cause of death or injury to occupants. Howeve,r it was likely pursued, because it's the last area of vehcile desing that has not been specifically addressed. I think they shoud have announced thsi new test 304 years in advance and given MFG's an opportunity ot chance their designs rathe than spirng it on the industry so that only by sheer luck 2 of a dozen vehciels pass.
Honda Element, which is the same as CR-V, but with more boxed designed passed the new test.
And Mr. CR-V, if you really want to trash me and carlitos for our pinions, then go ahead. I've already made my choice and absolutely love it! The CR-V just doesn't measure up where it REALLY matters.
I only trash blatant lies and exaggerations. You provided test results to support your claims. :P
However, I do wonder....
You bought the Tiguan on October 22nd, yet the IHHS report was not released until November 18th. Unless you are able to predict the future, there is no way that you could have assessed that the Tiguan's A, B, and C pillars are able to withstand the 3.25x of its own weight versus the CR-V's 2.5X its own weight.
So, did you really base your choice on the have yet to be released safety report?
Let's be honest....
You are just trying to justify spending $10,000 more for the same econobox station wagon. :surprise:
If you do have the ability to see into the future, I would like your top 10 stock picks, and lottery winning numbers for the next powerball.
Thank you.
The Element also did well, 2003 - 2010 models, received "Good" in rollover test with a strength to weight ratio of 4.31 at a curb weight of 3633 lbs.
Notice the similarity in curb weight but substantial difference in roof strength.
Now, for the CR-V, 2007-2010 models. It received a "Marginal" score, with a strength to weight ratio of 2.80 at a curb weight of 3469 lbs.
All 3 are pretty close in weight but the important number, strength to weight, is the important number here.
Yikes! You just stated that the CR-V is the same as the Element, yet look at the numbers. The strength to weight ratio of 2.80 is pretty sad. How can you compare the Element to CR-V in that arena? And you're trying to tell us that the CR-V is prefereable to the Tiguan? Let's see, I, "joe-consumer" will choose a vehicle which only measures Marginal as opposed to a vehicle that scores "good"? What are you smoking?
Yes, the Tiguan is more expensive, but I'm willing to spend more money for a more substantially safe vehicle.
And oh by the way, let's put both vehicles in a parking lot and have a panel of experts compare side-by-side, to see which is constructed better. Fit, materials, workmanship, features, specs, performance, and safety.
What's your next argument?
Vince.
Don't get me wrong, the Tiguan according the IIHS stest, is very well designed. It's a great platform, I like VW's. But like the Rogue, it was too small. And ultimately too expensive for comparable trim levels and features. The very good engine and chassis carried at $5000 premium. With that price and level of fuel economy, I'll start shopping much a more capable Murano or a Higlander.
You can't really compare the 2 fairly side by side because the Tiguan, based on it's size and interior dimensions should be less expensive. But it comes with a chassi and engine more comparable ot vehcile 1 class above. So for it's price, I would expect better interior materials and fit & finish.
Maybe it is so top heavy is that it is more prone to roll over than the CR-V and hence VW had to put a stronger roof on it?
We all know what happened when "Joe-Consumer" was after safer and safer vehicle... we had the SUV wars of the late 90's and early 2000's, with the gargantuan SUV's clogging the roadways.
So, if you were really after the safest vehicle for your self and your family, you would have bought an 80,000 lbs Greyhound bus. Because there should be no limit to guarantee the safety... In liu of Greyhound bus, may I suggest a Mack truck, or a Bradley Assault vehicle? The last one comes with armor to protect against rogue shopping carts at the mall.
Stop trying to convince your self as to why you paid $10,000 more. You had no clue that Tiguan had strogner roof than the CR-V when you bought it. The report was not out, yet!
And, yes, CR-V and the Element are the same car in different skin. The vertical design of the same pillars is what yielded higher roof strength for the Element than the CR-V.
I also wonder if the vertical forces in the roll over collision ever exceed the 2x the vehicle weight. Is there any data on that? The excessive roof strength would only matter if something was dropped on it, like a piano falling from the 20th floor, or a bridge falling on the car.
As to the experts making descisions, I think they have spoken when they compared the vehicles in any Small SUV comparo. Tiguan, not matter how nice it may be, does not justify what VW charges for it.
The purpose of this thread is to contrast 3 vehicles, to give people who haven't purchased a vehicle, a chance to make an informed decision, but they have a hard time doing so, because the arguing and sniping in this thread seems to have transformed this thread into the personal background for owners. I'm not going to argue anymore, because it isn't in anyone's best interests.
You've purchased the Honda and don't have to justify your decision. I've bought the Tiguan and I'm happy with it. Both vehicles are impressive, both have strengths and both have weaknesses. If you want to say the CR-V is superior, I'll grant you that some aspect the CR-V shines, but the Tiguan shines as well.
Peace!
Vince.
yes some men find the need to keep their hands on the stick, maybe that gives them the feeling of being "Big", as for me, i know i am and do not feel the need to prove it, and who knows maybe im a woman?
so besides the sexist bitter flavor of you comment, it fails to deliver any comedic value.
Nor does yours.
Agreed; if only VW could go consistently without long-term reliability problems (3-5 years and beyond), I'd put them on my short list of makes I'd love to own. They're more exciting than the Honda lineup, but I don't have enough disposable income to sleep at night with one in my garage.
The Tiguan's back seat strikes me as very small (I'm 6'5" and pay special attention to legroom); I can sit in the back of a CR-V or a Santa-Fe just fine. I'm not sure I could in a Tiguan. Thoughts?
Keep in mind that if you were to slide the CR-V's rear seat forward to have the same rear legroom as the Tiguan, the rear cargo area would expand by another 3 or 4 cu-ft.
This weekend I hauled a 8 foot long area rug we pick-up at Lowes down the center of the CR-V and still had plenty of room for 3 passengers and a car seat. We then loaded up the cargo area with christmas gifts and still had room for a large stroller... and I could still see out the back window. With a Tiguan or Rogue, I wouldn't be able to do so.
Is it still a CUV if it lacks utility for many common tasks???
I agree with you about the reliability issue. I've never considered VW, until now, because of relibility track record. But the Tiguan may change that. The Tiguan is a big unknown, but Consumer Reports, from what data they've collected to date, seems to think reliability may be favorable. Time will tell. The fact that they given it their "check mark" is a plus for me.
As for the cost issue, Consumer Reports states "The Tiguan straddles the line between the less-expensive Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4 and upscale models like the Acura RDX among small SUVs", I found this to be true and it fits my pocketbook. Overall, I think the Tiguan is a little more "plush" than the CR-V, but that's just me.
Vince.
I am sorry, I confused you with Carlitos. He had the bluetooth GPS, panoramic sunroof and some other options which added to $5000 over sticker, which was $5000 more than the CR-V to begin with.
One criteria is relatively low road noise - I have a hearing problem and road noise - and less so, wind and engine noise - really bothers me. The Audi is not all that quiet. There were a couple of nice posts actually comparing these vehicles (e.g. gdoc) - in between the nasty flame war of Blueiedguy and Carlitos- so if anyone has recently driven these cars, I would love to hear your personal comparisons, especially about noise. And headroom
My take after driving the first two vehicles is that they are both fun cars and have decent interiors. The Forester has more speed off the line - which I don't use, and the JSW more speed in onramp, mountain road and highway passing situations. The JSW was a bit quieter - I think - but of course has less ground clearance. Notice that I don't mention the CR-V because, while it handles nicely, it is really slow. I also don't mention the CR-V because, like a lot of Hondas, it has high levels of road noise. My test drive last year confirmed that. Thanks.
You might as well also consider the new Forde Edge, Nissan Murano, the new Kia Sorento.
You also might want to look at the Accord Crosstour for comparison. Yes, there is road noise. But I'm still of the belief , that the overall sound levels are still the same. It's just that the wind and engine are quieter than the tire noise so the tire noise seems louder.
I'm suprised you consider the CR-V underpowered. The acceleration numbers for hte AWD CR-V and the JSW TDI are not that much different. The torque off the bottom, turbo lag, sound and lighter weight of the JSW TDI makes it feel quicker. The CR-V isn't really slow, just subdued. I also think some cars "feel" a lot quicker because they have jumpy throttles. The CR-V's throttle is much more linear.
Also, what I am hoping for is commments from people that have recently cross shopped and actually driven these vehicles. I really don't want to get into an online discussion with anyone about the merits of the CR-V especially with those who are diehard fans. I drove the CR-V and didn't like it for the reasons I stated above. Thanks.
Regards:
OldCEM