Topic: Comparison Test: Compact Crossover SUVs

[mlin32]

If it was my own money, I'd just get a VW Golf Wagon TDI with better driving dynamics, fewer emissions, lower consumption, and enough useable space. It's not like I need to bring my entire kitchen and living room on my trips.

I mean, I crammed 2 people's worth of ski gear, clothing, and food stuffs for a week long trip to Montréal and Tremblant over Christmas. Even brought home a 24 case of beer on the way home. It all fit in my Mazda 3 BM hatch.

[initial_D]

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 was a bit of a surprise to me too, despite spending so much seat time in it last autumn.  It's one of those vehicles that quietly goes about its business, not calling a whole lot of attention to itself, and just does a lot of things very well.  The sort of vehicle that makes good sense for the majority of the population buying these things, I suspect.

As to which I'd buy with my own money?  The unanimous answer to that very question over lunch on test day was "None of the above" (auto writers only want diesel, rwd, stick shift, brown wagons, remember?)... but of this group, I'd take the CR-V. 

Honda and Nissan have been very impressive in our past two big comparos (subcompacts and this test).

Thee dream car does exist for you guys!

http://autos.vinaudit.com/car-detail/240/Volvo-240-roll-up-windows-1980-265-Volvo-Wagon_321394842562.html

[EV-Light]

I crammed 2 people's worth of ski gear, clothing, and food stuffs for a week long trip to Montréal and Tremblant over Christmas. Even brought home a 24 case of beer on the way home. It all fit in my Mazda 3 BM hatch.

^^ that's the keyword that drives people into small CUVs, not everyone likes to cram stuff in their vehicles.

[Noto]

One of the most important updates to the CX-5 is the infotainment system. 

It was 'better', but still onerous to change even the radio.  It's menu after submenu after submenu.  not intuitive.  Thankfully the touchscreen works.

Again, well done, and thanks to NoTo for his perspective.

Holy cow, better put Noah on the payroll, just for the sheer word count of that comment!

He's a great asset to our test team. 

!!!

[Great_Big_Abyss]

If it was my own money, I'd just get a VW Golf Wagon TDI with better driving dynamics, fewer emissions, lower consumption, and enough useable space. It's not like I need to bring my entire kitchen and living room on my trips.

I mean, I crammed 2 people's worth of ski gear, clothing, and food stuffs for a week long trip to Montréal and Tremblant over Christmas. Even brought home a 24 case of beer on the way home. It all fit in my Mazda 3 BM hatch.

What happens when you have kids and you have to take even more stuff, and lose the backseat space to pack things in?  You'll need something larger.  Seriously, 2 people for a weekend and you 'crammed' a Mazda 3?  With your apparent packing skills you'll need a Surburban.

[jyarkony]

Peter:

Despite this Limited model’s lack of features

- it was the Touring trim.

Santa Fe:

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.

Correct on the Subaru Forester (fixed), not so much on the Santa Fe Sport... Santa Fe Sport Limited is available only on 2.0T models, and is a higher trim than Luxury (http://www.hyundaicanada.com/Pages/showroom/showroom.aspx?model=santa%20fe%20sport).

[jyarkony]

Price as Tested: $38,990 only gets you a 2.5L non turbo 184 hp and 185 lb-ft,
Far cry from the Forester XT Turbo with  250 turbocharged horses.

Curious why was the engine on the Cherokee not mentioned. Was it the 4 or 6 ? If 6 it explains the F.E.

Yeah, what the hell? oops

It was the 2.4L I4, and I added this: "Perhaps the nine-speed just had to work too hard keeping the 184 hp and 171 lb-ft of torque of the 2.4L Tigershark in its powerband while maintaining efficiency, especially tough with 1,788 kg of curb weight to drag around – shocking curb weight and heaviest vehicle in this test."

That 4x4 gear really costs the Cherokee in usable space, weight and fuel consumption. The V6 would have been around 14 L/100 km...

I was actually amazed at how close they all were in fuel consumption on the day of testing, ranging from 10.2 to 11.8, which is probably one of the smallest spreads we've ever had in any comparison.

[tooscoops]

pshhh... noto.... tldr.

kidding... i read it all for some reason. good input!

some pretty good cars in this category. i don't think there is as much parity as in the mid-sized sedan market, but we are getting to a point where the "bad" choices are still pretty decent.

a shame that an issue like the rattle in the jeep (think the glass in the back was the same initial cause of the glass issue in the front?... if so, just stupid to use that car as a tester... smart move jeep) is what caused so much of a problem... i'm sure it still would have finished in the bottom half due to no love for the drivetrain, but still...

also, i'm another looking for that handy chart that has been done previous... they are great.

my money... tough call. i don't love any of them, so even the one i choose will be a flip of the coin... maybe mazda? well, i guess i would choose the jeep because i can buy it for the closest to true cost...

[EV-Light]

how much bigger are these compared to the Q3? just curious as I saw a Q3 just the other day and I thought it was bigger than I thought it would be.

[2JDM]

The Forester desperately needs the interior refresh like the 2015 Impreza/Crosstrek, Legacy and Outback. Hopefully for 2016?

I'd go for the Forester XT Limited myself, with a refreshed interior.

[KKullar]

Currently have a 2016 CX-5 GT with the tech package. Pros are that it drives nicely, is good on fuel, looks handsome and some of the tech features work well like adaptive cruise control. Additionally, the navigation maps are clear and easy to read. I especially like the feature where upcoming streets display on top margin of the screen. Good idea. Also, the back-up camera is one of the better ones I have used. Bright at night and clear during the day.

On the cons, I find the NVH poor, especially under throttle ... contrary to what the review says. However, I am coming out of a 2015 Genesis sedan so the juxtaposition of the two vehicles may be contributing to that opinion. Additionally, the MazdaConnect system, while having excellent graphics, has some annoying quirks. I like to view the fuel economy monitor. Each time I start the vehicle I have to navigate back to the screen, buried within another menu. Also, the small screen in the gauge cluster for trip computer & adaptive cruise control looks very dated.

Overall, I can see why the CX-5 is a popular choice in the segment. My brother recently purchased a 2015 CR-V EX so hopefully I can get a chance to compare the two sometime soon. Looking forward to trying out a decent CVT tranmission!

  Kev

Edit: Forgot to mention, the CX-5 is equipped with LED headlights. IMO, the colour range is too blue. I prefer the more pure white light of HID's. HID's also seem to have a better fill of light whereas the LED's seem to have gaps with lost coverage. I am guessing the LED's consume less power and will likely be more cost effective for the manufacturer and customer, but my preference will always be towards better visibility.

[ArtW]

What a bollocks result! Hunchback of Notre Dame (CRV) wins and a whiner (read CVT) is in second place???!!! Really??? That's all you guys could come up with? 
I am appalled!

[dirtyjeffer]

The Forester desperately needs the interior refresh like the 2015 Impreza/Crosstrek, Legacy and Outback. Hopefully for 2016?

I'd go for the Forester XT Limited myself, with a refreshed interior.

myself as well...if you are getting an SUV, this one at least looks the part...i like its boxy shape, has the best AWD system, the turbo engine is fun when the power is wanted and it checks all the "Practical" boxes (safety, fuel economy, resale value, ease of ingress/egress, etc)...yes, it gets pricey in top trim, but everything else is too.

[KD]

Noah?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bputeFGXEjA

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmXIIL2tmR8

 

[libraman]

I have not been in all of these but of those that I have driven would take the Subaru:

* great visibility, spacious feel. I don't like the sightlines in most of the others.

* best in class fuel economy according to Consumer reports real world tests.

* availability of a manual.

* its awd system.

* did I mention the sightlines?

Not the best looking on the outside. But hey are any of these vehicles that great in that regard? I that one buys these types of vehicles more for functional capability than anything esle...at least that is my perspective.

Best-

[Snowman]

I have not been in all of these but of those that I have driven would take the Subaru:

* great visibility, spacious feel. I don't like the sightlines in most of the others.

* best in class fuel economy according to Consumer reports real world tests.

* availability of a manual.

* its awd system.

* did I mention the sightlines?

Not the best looking on the outside. But hey are any of these vehicles that great in that regard? I that one buys these types of vehicles more for functional capability than anything esle...at least that is my perspective.

Best-

Same here, as a former Subaru owner I would get the Forester or Outback id shipping for a SUV.

[Benhaze]

Price as Tested: $38,990 only gets you a 2.5L non turbo 184 hp and 185 lb-ft,
Far cry from the Forester XT Turbo with  250 turbocharged horses.

Curious why was the engine on the Cherokee not mentioned. Was it the 4 or 6 ? If 6 it explains the F.E.

Yeah, what the hell? oops

It was the 2.4L I4, and I added this: "Perhaps the nine-speed just had to work too hard keeping the 184 hp and 171 lb-ft of torque of the 2.4L Tigershark in its powerband while maintaining efficiency, especially tough with 1,788 kg of curb weight to drag around – shocking curb weight and heaviest vehicle in this test."

That 4x4 gear really costs the Cherokee in usable space, weight and fuel consumption. The V6 would have been around 14 L/100 km...

I was actually amazed at how close they all were in fuel consumption on the day of testing, ranging from 10.2 to 11.8, which is probably one of the smallest spreads we've ever had in any comparison.

I would never consider a Cherokee without the V6 and frankly I find it is ill-advised to pass on that great opportunity and benefits of getting the V6. The Cherokeereviewed was likely provided to you by Jeep but if the option to get a V6 is available it would only be fair to give kudos to Chrysler for offering it and compare that model to the competition who choose not to offer V6 engines anymore. It would still have been even cheaper than a few models reviewed here.

[initial_D]

^^ I read the CX-5 drives the best, and they loved its armrest and cup holders.

[sly]

Why is the Mitsubishi Outlander not invited here? It may lack some of the others refinement but it will outlast others in reliability and toughness. I currently live in Australia (a few years then back home) and I can tell you that the Outlander is a high seller here because it outlives all other SUV in durability and can take a lot more beating than most. Not counting you can lock the AWD system in full AWD at all speeds.

[Solstice2006]

The models in this comparo have had updates within the last year.  The Outlander, Escape, Equinox/Terrain, nothing really has changed.  And possibly no press vehicle was available?  What motor is used in the Outlander in Australia?