Topic: Comparison Test: Luxury Compact SUVs

[johngenx]

Yeah, word is out that the Trailhawk Cherokee is pretty hardcore capable for something "not a big 4x4 truck" and can go places that scare folks silly.

I finally saw one on the back of a car carrier the other day, and I like the look.

[Kman]

What an unexpectedly fun read ! Well-written and well argued comparison ! Thank you Canadian girl who brought us this Aussie chap. Great addition to the Canadian automotive landscape.

Also: the X4 for me too (though I'd make it an X3).

Also 2: I "hate" the X3 because I've always wanted a 3-er Touring, but the current X3 drives so damn well, is larger inside and prices lower, that it makes it hard to justify the Touring. (Damn you BMW Canada.)

[KD]

What an unexpectedly fun read ! Well-written and well argued comparison ! Thank you Canadian girl who brought us this Aussie chap. Great addition to the Canadian automotive landscape.

Also: the X4 for me too (though I'd make it an X3).

Also 2: I "hate" the X3 because I've always wanted a 3-er Touring, but the current X3 drives so damn well, is larger inside and prices lower, that it makes it hard to justify the Touring. (Damn you BMW Canada.)

My thoughts exactly!

[crwpitman]

Kinda wish real-world mileage figures were listed, as the Lincoln turbo could eat up much more gas than the EPA suggests (and the Land Rover may suffer trying to keep up).  Also, part of me unfortunately feels the BMW won because it's a BMW (it read as if there was a definite BMW bias).

[JacobBlack]

Kinda wish real-world mileage figures were listed, as the Lincoln turbo could eat up much more gas than the EPA suggests (and the Land Rover may suffer trying to keep up).  Also, part of me unfortunately feels the BMW won because it's a BMW (it read as if there was a definite BMW bias).

If anything, I am more biased towards the Evoque - I really, really love those things but that love is aesthetic and very much individual. We try to see the cars we test from as wide-angle as we can. The BMW delivered on that front.
 
RE: Fuel economy. I landed on 10.5 after a week, the MKC showed 12.2 after a week and the BMW showed 11.9.
These were all in the hands of different drivers over a week though, so that isn't as scientific as we'd like - hence leaving it off. I stupidly forgot to record our figures on the day. Apologies.

[EV-Light]

Kinda wish real-world mileage figures were listed, as the Lincoln turbo could eat up much more gas than the EPA suggests (and the Land Rover may suffer trying to keep up).  Also, part of me unfortunately feels the BMW won because it's a BMW (it read as if there was a definite BMW bias).

If anything, I am more biased towards the Evoque - I really, really love those things but that love is aesthetic and very much individual. We try to see the cars we test from as wide-angle as we can. The BMW delivered on that front.
 
RE: Fuel economy. I landed on 10.5 after a week, the MKC showed 12.2 after a week and the BMW showed 11.9.
These were all in the hands of different drivers over a week though, so that isn't as scientific as we'd like - hence leaving it off. I stupidly forgot to record our figures on the day. Apologies.

The difference is performance between them is relatively small too.

Evoque (240hp)
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.9 sec
 Zero to 100 mph: 19.3 sec
 Zero to 120 mph: 33.2 sec
 Street start, 5-60 mph: 7.8 sec

MKC (285hp)
C/D TEST RESULTS:
 Zero to 60 mph: 6.4 sec
 Zero to 100 mph: 18.9 sec
 Zero to 120 mph: 36.9 sec
 Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 7.1 sec

BMW X3 2.8 (240hp)
C/D TEST RESULTS:
 Zero to 60 mph: 6.2 sec
 Zero to 100 mph: 17.8 sec
 Zero to 130 mph: 30.4 sec
 Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 7.0 sec

[JacobBlack]

The difference is performance between them is relatively small too.

Wrong BMW.
Wrong engine.
Wrong conclusion.

[EV-Light]

The difference is performance between them is relatively small too.

Wrong BMW.
Wrong engine.
Wrong conclusion.

LOL the 3.5 is too powerful to compete against the Evoque and MKC...look at this:

X4 3.5
C/D TEST RESULTS:
 Zero to 60 mph: 5.2 sec
 Zero to 100 mph: 13.8 sec
 Zero to 130 mph: 28.7 sec
 Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.2 sec

[JacobBlack]

EXACTLY!
Same price - miles better performance. The Evoque's stunning looks couldn't bridge that gap.