Author Topic: Comparison Test: Compact Crossover SUVs (Read 38365 times)

Autos_Editor · « **on:** March 13, 2015, 06:30:28 am »

A lot can happen in a year.
Read More...

superukr · « **Reply #1 on:** March 13, 2015, 07:55:11 am »

man, but Honda is so ugly

Snowman · « **Reply #2 on:** March 13, 2015, 08:16:58 am »

A neighbor just bought a new CR-V and I had to go check it out as I was interested in the refresh work after testing one out last year while shopping for my daughters CUV. I did not find that the CR-V needed it as I thought there was noting wrong with the previous design. I'm not a fan of latest styling but the interior is the nicest out of the bunch. Not as nice as the Tiguan tho

. I guess to keep fresh a design cycle is two years now

"As Noah stated" " Noah found it" "Noah finding it"

all that hard work is paying off.

jyarkony · « **Reply #3 on:** March 13, 2015, 08:24:37 am »

Quote from: Snowman on March 13, 2015, 08:16:58 am

A neighbor just bought a new CR-V and I had to go check it out as I was interested in the refresh work after testing one out last year while shopping for my daughters CUV. I did not find that the CR-V needed it as I thought there was noting wrong with the previous design. I'm not a fan of latest styling but the interior is the nicest out of the bunch. Not as nice as the Tiguan tho . I guess to keep fresh a design cycle is two years now

"As Noah stated" " Noah found it" "Noah finding it" all that hard work is paying off.

Noah is the most prolific commenter in our post-testing round-ups, although Laurance gives him a run for his money...

Count me in with anyone that finds the CR-V looking worse after this refresh - I do not like the led eyeliner or the strange arrangement of headlights and grille, and I don't see how others found it attractive... Just goes to show this isn't a styling contest, although personally I'd have a problem adding anything I found ugly to my initial consideration list.

For that reason and the family situation, the Santa Fe was my personal pick for a car I would take home.

jpd · « **Reply #4 on:** March 13, 2015, 08:28:32 am »

Good review!! I do like my CRV 2015, it is the best CRV so far! To me the seats are very comfortable. The new engine and the CVT tranny are just great! Just enough power for everybody needs!!

mlin32 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 13, 2015, 08:33:20 am »

Surprised the Mazda didn't win this one. The MZD connect infotainment is very easy to use (if you're a fan of iDrive or MMI), and overall they copied a lot of the features from what the European consumer demands. But to each his/her own, that's why there are so many choices.

dbrebel · « **Reply #6 on:** March 13, 2015, 08:42:12 am »

A friend of mine got a 2015 CR-V EX-L and I had several opportunities to drive it and ride in it. After experiencing the "not bad" CVT drivetrain on the 2013 Accord I-4 that I had, it's clear with the CR-V that Honda has worked all the bugs out of it. It's smooth, quick to "downshift" and no droning or hanging at high revs at all.

I don't think that the touchscreen looks bad at all... anyone who contends that it looks like a Commodore 64 apparently has no idea what a Commodore 64 looks like. Unless those remarks are aimed at the Nav screen... that I haven't seen. But it shows considerable progress from the primitive touchscreen in my gen 9 Accord. But if memory serves, the CR-V has a physical volume control to the left of the screen rather than a touch control. Unless Canadian spec for this is different than US spec. Worse though is the little screen up above... the difference in graphics quality between the 2 screens is so dramatic that they look like they belong in different cars. I can certainly see applying the Commodore 64 comments to that screen. I could see the little screen above if they split the functionality... perhaps have the top screen dedicated to gas mileage readouts and focus on audio control and displays on the bottom (along with Nav if so equipped). And bump up the resolution on the top screen and make it look like the graphics on the bottom.

As for progress in this area, it sounds as if the new Pilot is going to go with Android Auto, so it should be a whole new game there. I suspect that the refresh for the 2016 Accord will follow suit, along with the upcoming FMCs for Civic and CR-V. So then it becomes a matter of how well designed Android Auto is.

The new front end styling is an improvement... sharper and more dynamic. Too bad that there wasn't a quick fix for the rear profile, which retains its broken back look. The drive is very nice as well. Comparing it to the Accord that I mentioned, it's pretty similar except for the higher noise level (wind and road noise). Overall though, a successful refresh IMO. It's nice to see the refreshes amounting to more than just a slight grille change and a new color choice like before.

pcsp · « **Reply #7 on:** March 13, 2015, 08:51:43 am »

"Being a half-size larger than most of these compacts, it [Sante Fe] was the undisputed champion of cargo space, handily beating out all the other contenders."

Not sure where this statement is sourced. It's incorrect as far as I can tell. The Santa Fe, with 71.5 cu. feet of cargo space, edges out the winner (70.9) and is much less than the Rav 4 (73.4). Considering the Hyundai's size and weight, its cargo space is only adequate. CRV definitely a justified winner. Buyers of compact SUVs want convenience, fuel economy, and cargo/passenger space, along with reliability. CRV delivers. Powertrain is now up to the high standards of Honda, including a CVT that has leap-frogged the competition. Looks and appearance, especially the rear quarter windows, need considerable work. AWD system, though not sophisticated, does the job well and probably doesn't deserve the flack it has received.

dbrebel · « **Reply #8 on:** March 13, 2015, 09:03:58 am »

Quote from: pcsp on March 13, 2015, 08:51:43 am

AWD system, though not sophisticated, does the job well and probably doesn't deserve the flack it has received.

The AWD system in this generation is a notable improvement. The same friend that I mentioned in my previous post had a 2011 CR-V (prior to his 2015) which I drove in snow. Not bad, but you can really notice the revision in the current generation that always provides power to the rear wheels when accelerating from a stop. Gives it much smoother starts in slippery conditions.

pcsp · « **Reply #9 on:** March 13, 2015, 09:10:18 am »

Quote from: dbrebel on March 13, 2015, 09:03:58 am

Quote from: pcsp on March 13, 2015, 08:51:43 am
AWD system, though not sophisticated, does the job well and probably doesn't deserve the flack it has received.

The AWD system in this generation is a notable improvement. The same friend that I mentioned in my previous post had a 2011 CR-V (prior to his 2015) which I drove in snow. Not bad, but you can really notice the revision in the current generation that always provides power to the rear wheels when accelerating from a stop. Gives it much smoother starts in slippery conditions.

Good feedback. Has to be said, Honda does an awesome job of model updates and revisions. Can't wait to see the new Ridgeline (and its updates).

JohnnyMac · « **Reply #10 on:** March 13, 2015, 09:45:27 am »

Quote from: pcsp on March 13, 2015, 08:51:43 am

"Being a half-size larger than most of these compacts, it [Sante Fe] was the undisputed champion of cargo space, handily beating out all the other contenders."

Not sure where this statement is sourced. It's incorrect as far as I can tell. The Santa Fe, with 71.5 cu. feet of cargo space, edges out the winner (70.9) and is much less than the Rav 4 (73.4). Considering the Hyundai's size and weight, its cargo space is only adequate. CRV definitely a justified winner. Buyers of compact SUVs want convenience, fuel economy, and cargo/passenger space, along with reliability. CRV delivers. Powertrain is now up to the high standards of Honda, including a CVT that has leap-frogged the competition. Looks and appearance, especially the rear quarter windows, need considerable work. AWD system, though not sophisticated, does the job well and probably doesn't deserve the flack it has received.

Maybe what they were saying is it performed the best in their hockey bag/stroller test.

JohnnyMac · « **Reply #11 on:** March 13, 2015, 09:46:47 am »

I'm kind of surprised no one has mentioned the Nissan Rogue coming in second. To me that's the biggest surprise of the test. Would have been nice if the article added what each reviewer would have bought with their own money, I always find that telling.

initial_D · « **Reply #12 on:** March 13, 2015, 09:49:01 am »

^^ The placement of the Subie and Nissan was not what I expected, given it is a Canadian winter testing environment.

Honda CRVs are always great in this class.

drive67 · « **Reply #13 on:** March 13, 2015, 10:10:24 am »

Only the Subaru Forester has a real AWD system and is offered with a manual transmission so #1 and the rest does not measure up. I drove the last years CRV and hated the low down car like feel and not knowing where the front end was when parallel parking.

Solstice2006 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 13, 2015, 10:14:29 am »

Quote from: mlin32 on March 13, 2015, 08:33:20 am

Surprised the Mazda didn't win this one. The MZD connect infotainment is very easy to use (if you're a fan of iDrive or MMI), and overall they copied a lot of the features from what the European consumer demands. But to each his/her own, that's why there are so many choices.

Main reason the CX-5 didn't place first is, about $1000-$2000 over priced. And has less practicality than some of the others. The rear seats don't recline, or slide. There is no power liftgate. If those issues were addressed, it would be 1st or 2nd. I think it deserves it's spot, which is still respectable.

redman · « **Reply #15 on:** March 13, 2015, 10:17:16 am »

.."The Subie was ultimately bruised here by its lower trim level. As Noah stated, “Once you get into the Limited, it becomes a much, MUCH nicer place to be"

Hard not to agree that the difference between the base interior and Limited interiors are substantially different environments with most Subaru products.
I find the issue comes down to the base interiors of the Subaru, it fails to meet the feature and styling of some of the new offerings on the list here. Quality is there.
Another refresh taking into account 3 points could easily take the Forester to number one. 1) More standard features, More interior styling and a little more juice in the base 2.5L engine.
A D.I. engine may just be the answer here.
It seems that the difference between placing here has become fluffly. At the end of the day others on the list can't currently match the AWD established prowess that helps define an SUV.
What they seem do is make for a better packaged raised car.
~~Enter the Subbie fanboys.~~

Solstice2006 · « **Reply #16 on:** March 13, 2015, 10:17:31 am »

Before I forget. Very good comparo in a highly competitive segment, and one of the most popular. I don't see a chart like in some of the other comparos?

And were Laurance and Noah just around for testing purposes? No reviews?

Weels · « **Reply #17 on:** March 13, 2015, 10:17:55 am »

Quote from: JohnnyMac on March 13, 2015, 09:46:47 am

I'm kind of surprised no one has mentioned the Nissan Rogue coming in second. To me that's the biggest surprise of the test. Would have been nice if the article added what each reviewer would have bought with their own money, I always find that telling.

The Rogue is a really nice all around rig. And that shelving set up in back very handy. Comfortable & quiet, it would be my choice for a long road-trip ride.
These are my scribble notes from test day:

Rogue - limo ride of the group. Quiet & comfortable cruiser. Outward visibility a bit of an issue though. Good seats. Nice materials. JUST ahead of the CR-V (!!!) as my fave interior. Clear, legible gauges except for the nav which i found a bit hard to read. Surprised how much I liked it in same way the Versa Note surprised me in the Subcompact Comparison test

If it was my own $$ i'd take the CRV, which i did not expect because i had pretty solid dislike for the CRV before. The Rogue's value is compelling, but i prefer the drive of the Honda and would pony up the extra dough. At least it now feels more like it is worth the price tag.

The one thing that stood out in this test was the vastly differing opinions on the RAV. Leslie is a fan, but I really disliked it. Was my least favourite drive of the 7.
But... that's why the scraps and name calling after all the testing is done such fun

Weels · « **Reply #18 on:** March 13, 2015, 10:22:38 am »

Quote from: Solstice2006 on March 13, 2015, 10:14:29 am

Quote from: mlin32 on March 13, 2015, 08:33:20 am
Surprised the Mazda didn't win this one. The MZD connect infotainment is very easy to use (if you're a fan of iDrive or MMI), and overall they copied a lot of the features from what the European consumer demands. But to each his/her own, that's why there are so many choices.

Main reason the CX-5 didn't place first is, about $1000-$2000 over priced. And has less practicality than some of the others. The rear seats don't recline, or slide. There is no power liftgate. If those issues were addressed, it would be 1st or 2nd. I think it deserves it's spot, which is still respectable.

Yes, price certainly hurt the cx5
I'd buy the CRV over the CX5. The CRV's 2015 revisions are significant and transform the vehicle IMO.

mixmanmash · « **Reply #19 on:** March 13, 2015, 10:31:27 am »

Regarding the Rogue, it certainly is a huge step up. But I would stay away for a year or two as a few people I know have had issues that are major enough that required the vehicle to be towed in.