A lot can happen in a year.
Just ask anyone who’s gone from recent graduate to getting his or her first grown-up job (and salary).
Was that a crack at me?!?! I've been out for 2 years now!!
In order:
it’s the Cherokee that needs another year of polishing to be truly great.
I really tried to be neutral and like this thing. I rated its styling highly, I found the interior comfortable, and I found its uniqueness to be enjoyable; however, the build quality scared the crap out of me and the powertrain combo was one of the worst. It wasn't even the gear-hunting, but the delay when you floor it. Flooring it means "I need MOAR POWAH right meow!" ...not, "I'll get there, lemme just get out my change purse and find the exact change for you, young man. I felt that the engine was also rather anemic until about 4,000rpm, though it's possible the transmission was taking all of the fault there. As for driving dynamics, this thing bounced and bounced and bounced over any road imperfection. It wasn't jarring like the Rav4, but sooooo bouncy. With my bad back, this was the only car to cause me pain all day.
Rav4:
It didn’t score well in content amenities either, which I found surprising. The $2,135 Technology package adds lane departure warning, rear cross traffic alert, blind spot monitor, back-up sensors and an 11-speaker sound system, on top of the Limited’s standard navigation, Bluetooth, cruise, smart key, power sunroof, power liftgate, 6.1-inch display, auto headlights, fog lights, heated seats and steering wheel voice controls.
Cars that do nothing right and some things wrong tend to place mid-pack. The issue with the content amenities is that the Rav doesn't show what amenities it has. UConnect in the Jeep is front and centre, but the system in this car was just...meh. The rear-cross traffic alert? Never experienced it on test day. Blind spot monitor was much smaller and less invasive compared to the CX-5, I don't think I heard the backup sensors beep at me, and the sound systems in all of these cars were just fine. I do recall driving back to the meeting point in the Rav4 and some Guns n' Roses came on. I opened all windows, moonroof incl, and blasted it, but everyone else was so isolated that nobody noted
I guess the system is good, but it's not IN YO FACE. As for smart key, I believe every single vehicle there had it, no? I don't remember turning a single key the entire day. Hell, even the Forester opened its doors without my touching the key. Where it really lost points for me was no heated steering wheel, no HIDs, no forward collision active mitigation, etc. The lane departure warning was the best of the bunch, though, on par with EyeSight. The Rav and Forester were the only ones to have working LDAs for me.
Forester:
At $34,145 the Subie was the least expensive vehicle here.
I have to say that I think this was the Forester's demise. That, and the tires (WS80s) were a curse on this run when compared to the all-season Kumhos on the Santa Fe, for example. Let's be honest here: the Forester is ONLY a good car when tarted up. Seriously, it's XT Limited or nothing. ...and priced comparatively, I don't see why someone would ever buy the $34k 2.5i Touring. When we bought our 2011 Forester XT, we first tested the 2.5i touring and turned around mid-test because the interior was just THAT bad. ...until we got into the Limited, with leather, navi, etc. and found it a pleasant place. It was that turbo motor that really sold us, though. On this test, the 2.5i wasn't wanting for power
per se, but it WAS aggressively programmed at tip-in (I NEVER got used to that - chirping the tires almost every time at a stoplight) and the lack of noise insulation in the Touring trim made for a not-so-pleasant experience. Driving the Forester, though, was by far the easiest with an airy interior cabin with great sightlines, light, but direct steering, and a comfortable driving position. The throttle and the mushy brakes were concerning, however. I, a Subaru-lover, ranked this 2nd last. As noted in the article, shame it wasn't a 2.5i Limited + EyeSight. Despite the tires giving out early, the chassis was always predictable and never upset. This cannot be said for the Cherokee, nor the *wait for it* CX-5! Those two, IMO, were the least predictable as to their breaking point when taking offramps at the 'speed limit'.
Peter:
Despite this Limited model’s lack of features
- it was the Touring trim.
Santa Fe:
Ergonomics, quality and gauges were all mid-pack – which is surprising because in the past we’ve praised the intuitive interface.
They're just all really dated. That's the best way to describe this car. It looks amazing from the outside, but the second you get inside, it feels like an Elantra...not a near-$40k vehicle. The HMI screen is hilariously small. Before we got to test day, I sent Jonathan an e-mail trying to guess the trim levels based on price. I thought this surely was the 2.4L Luxury. Nope. It was the Limited
(by the way, JY, that needs to be reflected in the photo captions - some say Luxury, but it was definitely not the Luxury trim). Had it been the luxury, it would have had the larger screen and some other goodies that would have helped, but the pricing wouldn't. This car suffers greatly from the GM-esque "ignore the sticker price...you'll never pay it, but what a deal you'll be getting!" I dislike that. As Lesley states, there was no navi system here despite being one of the most expensive. I REALLY liked the engine here, coming alive after 3,000pm in a big way, but this was one of the worst transmissions of the day. It was SO lazy, yet still managed horribly when it came to fuel economy. The CX-5's tranny was even worse, but at least fared well with respect to fuel economy. Years ago this would have been acceptable, but with CVTs being as good as they are now, I just gawked at this 6-speed's functioning.
CX-5:
Despite the improvements for the 2016 model that launched early this year, the improved Mazda CX-5 still fell a little short.
I was the outlier here. I universally abhorred the 2016 changes. The grille looks less cohesive, the interior is more drab, and most annoyingly (and this is not a LITTLE issue) is the new armrest. Stock image:
.jpg)
Notice how there's a cut-out for the cupholders, and so that your arm can reach the new HMI placement? Yeah, it drove me absolutely nuts, and completely ignores the possibility for a passenger to use the arm rest. Oh, and good luck reaching for your drink. What a moronic move, Mazda. I cannot stress enough how much this bothered me on test day. Notwithstanding that hatred, I did still concur that, if it were my $, I would drive home in a CX-5 that day.
I must also again point out that the B-Pillar is large and situated exactly beside my head based on my driver's position. Let's just call me average height/build...as compared to Jacob. It made for a fairly claustrophobic driver's space despite its smaller exterior footprint. I also agreed about the brakes being awful, and like I said previously, the tires were more performance-oriented compared to the WS80s on the Forester, but when they broke loose, the chassis was upset and harder to manage. It won't matter for 99% of driving, though, and otherwise the handling was sublime. I found the rear seats to be rather uncomfortable and difficult for ingress/egress, as well, but appreciated little touches like moving the sill to the door to keep dirt away. And as pointed out, the transmission was not great - slightly worse than the Santa Fe's.
Rogue:
And with the second lowest sticker and a generous load of kit, she’s not too demanding either.
^^ this. The Rogue's exterior is polarizing. I hated it, others liked it. Who cares. Styling is irrelevant to me. The Rogue's interior was hands-down the best of the bunch, looking classy, feeling GREAT, and being the most comfortable. Nissan has found a good partner for its HMIs as well, as this one was better than the one that won top marks in the subcompact comparo (in the Versa Note). Based on the price, I was floored to see how good it was. The let-downs here are not insignificant, though. I really, really disliked the engine/CVT combo. This CVT is the reason why auto journos continuously bash CVTs. Compared to the Forester's (squirrelly throttle tip-in or not) and the Honda's, this one just moo-ed away. It 'felt' coarse - that is to say, you could actually feel vibrations in your foot as you drove. Slight, but there. Otherwise, the road manners were mostly excellent - great comfort driving, but bouncy over expansion joints. The brake-induced torque-vectoring in this Rogue was very apparent and kept the car incredibly well-planted. I did not notice the weak steering feel as noted in the article, but do recall being woefully bored as I drove the machine.
I really liked the Rogue, but certain things just weren't right for me: the engine/transmission, the unfinished look of the cargo area, and like I said, the styling (and concomitantly horrible outward visibility to the rear and for your blind spots). Despite all my praise here, I, unlike others here, would not put my money down on this Rogue, but agree that it is a very, VERY good car in its own rights. Purchase decisions are based on priorities - powertrain, feature content, and outward visibility reign supreme for me.
It won’t raise your heartbeat, but hey, it might actually lower it.
This is likely the best way of putting it. Probably a good thing for our road-rage-filled streets.
CRV:
Let me preface this one:
The CRV was the first car for me to drive on test day. I had no expectations. I never liked the CRV, finding it to be just 'meh'. Well, here's what happened:
Everyone took off and I was barely ready to get going. I found the learning curve of the button-happy interior to be WAY too hard to deal with. Want to change the steering-wheel position? Find the lever. Normal. Next, want to turn on the radio? uhhhhhh. Ah. Got it. Want to adjust mirrors, HOLD ON, GUYS, WAIT FOR ME! It was too complex. Once you figured it out, however, it really wasn't bad...but it overwhelmed me in a way that none of the others did on that day.
First thing I noticed: I didn't notice the powertrain. It was smooth, silent, and just downright 'right'. It was a little coarse when you floored it, but for normal driving, this was the one to have. Earthdreams? Maybe a bit of a stretch, but it was on par with the powertrain in Subaru's Legacy (not yet found in the Forester, unfortunately).
HOW-THE-****-EVER, THE TORQUE-STEER ON THIS THING WAS FRIGHTENING. On dry pavement, even at speed, flooring it will have the car scrambling for grip...SIDEWAYS. I very much disliked it, but other than the buttons and the torque-steer, I really loved everything else about this car. Owning a Subaru makes it near-impossible for me to forgive this 'A'WD system, and that will keep me out of Honda showrooms, but if I were in the southern US and wanted a CUV? I would get this. ...in FWD.
I remember getting out after the first round and going up to the others like a child, bouncing, and thinking, "HOLY CRAP, SINCE WHEN CAN A CRV HANDLE LIKE THAT?!" Jonathan chuckled, "That surprises you? Hondas have always been able to handle!" I don't know what he's talking about, but this one seriously can. It leans, but it HOLDS-THE-ROAD!
Unfortunately, the seats are still a weak point, Brian noting “seat bottoms too flat, didn’t find them very comfortable.”
For my bad back, the seats were fine. Not Rogue-comfy, but 'fine'.
I again thank Autos.ca for inviting me and can absolutely confirm how difficult it is to comprehensibly test these, write them up, and be critical without bias. (I did not write any of the articles, by the way, so total props goes to those who did!)
"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 -
Aww, guys, you're making me blush!
Laurance is great and I'm content to be anywhere near his level of anything.
And I honestly thought the CRV was the most comprehensive 'in-the-metal' looking. I didn't like the black plastic in the grille or the massive chrome bar in the rear, but it worked.
^^ The placement of the Subie and Nissan was not what I expected, given it is a Canadian winter testing environment.
As mentioned, I am Subie-slappy and this one, in this trim, was just not up to snuff. Had it been Limited, it would have likely fared far better. The aggressive throttle tip-in and the lack of noise isolation are big issues.
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.
The CX-5 used to be "great", but is now "well, it doesn't do anything terribly." It just kind of fell into the mid-pack, but didn't
us off in any way, either (other than the armrest, of which I apparently was the only one to hate it so much). It's not an amazing machine in the way that Nissan has altered its interior, the way that the Forester has made its chassis so planted, or in the way that Honda has made the best 'weaksauce' powertrain here (i.e. non-turbo, non-V6). I was not left wanting for more power in the CRV like I was in some of the others (*cough* Cherokee). I agree that it's woefully overpriced, but the cargo space in the CX-5 is actually really incredible. 40/20/40 with levers from the trunk? It's a huge space, too. The power liftgate was a detractor in some cars (Forester), so sometimes better to not have it.
.."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"
When the Forester is refreshed, it'll get the CVT programming from the Legacy to fix the throttle issue, it'll get more noise insulation, and a better HMI. Also, cabin materials will be made better. It will fare better then, but by that point, everyone else will have moved forward by miles and Subaru will keep on playing "catch-up". It's sad, really.
And were Laurance and Noah just around for testing purposes? No reviews?
YEAH! YOU TELL HIM! YOU TELL THAT JY THAT NOAH WANTS TO DO SOME REVIEWS!
...don't forget Brian (weels), though
Jonathan, I don't have my notes as far as the polarized lens test was concerned...for the rest of ya'll, I wear polarized sunglasses and half of the cars (can't remember which ones) were illegible. To me, it's a deal-breaker since I'm not willing to give up my sunglasses. The Forester, oddly, failed in the upper screen, but no other screens. Weird to use different screens, but they do. Those oddballs.
