Topic: Comparison Test: Compact Crossover SUVs

[Agiledood]

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.

It hasn't done well in most NA comparos I've seen. Mostly because it's much more expensive...comparatively speaking...with a cheap interior.

I haven't driven the latest gen, but I did like the previous gen quite a bit. It's was our #2 pick a few years back when we totalled our Torrent. We ended up in a CX-9 instead.

[mlin32]

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.

What's wrong with a bit of tetris and creative thinking?

I think the bigger the car, the more people buy and carry with them. Kind of like houses- the more space one has, the more tempted one is to buy stuff to fill it up. A lot of the crossovers I see on holiday (hugely out-of-area number plates, e.g. Ontario tags in South Carolina) have stuff piled up to the ceiling. Aside from the safety problem of no rear visibility, did they really need to bring all that stuff?

[DriverJeff]

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.

Why no Outlander?  This is why:  http://www.autos.ca/car-comparisons/comparison-test-compact-crossover-suvs/2/

[Noto]

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.

That's because you had me to lower all of them

When I got out of the CRV, it was at 9.8L/100km after the first loop.  What was it at the end of test day?  I got the Cherokee down from 11.8L/100km to 11.4L/100km, too.

i'm sure it still would have finished in the bottom half due to no love for the drivetrain, but still...

Actually, I would have probably liked it better if I hadn't noticed the QC issues.  They were by far the biggest detractor for me - not the broken glass, but the rattling on acceleration.

Currently have a 2016 CX-5 GT with the tech package.

On the cons, I find the NVH poor, especially under throttle

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.

Thanks for your input!  The CX-5 isn't loud for the segment as far as NVH is concerned, but yes, compared to luxury rides...
I also agree re: LEDs vs HIDs.  I've noticed that on a number of vehicles, especially Acuras, but find that the LEDs on the Corolla and on Audis are really quite nice.  I think it's manufacturer-specific.  HOWEVER - FYI, LEDs are NOT cheaper than HIDs for anyone.

What a bollocks result!

I am appalled!

Since I don't work for autos.ca, I can respond accurately to this:

I'm appalled that you came to this forum on your own volition, read this wonderful and FREE article, and then had the audacity to use an excellent word (bollocks) towards something produced for your (and others persons') enjoyment.  Go troll elsewhere.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bputeFGXEjA

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

Nope, still not responding!

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

Another note towards the comparison:
No Forester XT, no Santa Fe Sport Turbo, no Cherokee V6.  Get the picture here?  These were all the base engine vehicles.  Had the Outlander been invited, loaded, but with the 166hp 'engine' (if we can even call it that these days)/CVT pair, it would have been woefully disliked.  If it came with 7 seats again, it would have been the lone wolf (the Rogue CAN, but didn't on test day - and good thing, since JY and others really liked the parcel shelf thing.  I found it a detractor as the trunk looked unfinished and the shelf rattled a bit).  Since most don't buy the upgraded engine, and many manufacturers don't even offer an upgraded engine, this was the better way to test on a level playing field.  It was most unfortunate that the Forester wasn't at least a 2.5i Limited + EyeSight, but otherwise, all vehicles as tested were in their proper loaded trims.  I suspect had the Forester been in Limited guise, it would have been:
CRV
Rogue
Forester
CX-5
Santa Fe
Rav4
Cherokee

Now if it were all loaded to the brims, upgraded engines incl, it may have been:
Forester
Santa Fe
CRV
Rogue
CX-5
Cherokee
Rav4

Just a guess - nothing to substantiate.

But the ranking is not what's important here!!!

Read the comments.  See what the testers liked/disliked.  Consider what's important for you.  If we disliked the engine, but a different one is available (I4 vs V6 Cherokee, for example), then adjust your weighting of that comment accordingly.  If reliability doesn't matter for you (i.e. you lease for 36 months on a car with a 36 month warranty), then our comments about the Cherokee don't matter and it should jump up on your list.

Almost none of us had identical rankings for all 7 positions.  Consider that when reading.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

But it's the Lord, Noah!

What's a cubit? 

[Noto]

What's a cubit?

The length of a boxer engine...well, closer to two.  45ish cm, IIRC.

[Mozeby]

I'm looking at the prices and I'm a bit shocked.  High 30s for some and mid 30s for the rest.  That's full size pickup territory, even entry level luxury car territory.  I don't know call me crazy, but these 4 bangers shouldn't cost as much as your average well equipped minivan.

[Solstice2006]

I'm looking at the prices and I'm a bit shocked.  High 30s for some and mid 30s for the rest.  That's full size pickup territory, even entry level luxury car territory.  I don't know call me crazy, but these 4 bangers shouldn't cost as much as your average well equipped minivan.

The RAV4 XLE AWD as tested (with freight) is $37,335, a Sienna XLE AWD (with freight) is over $43k!  So compare trim to trim.  What entry level luxury vehicle with similar features, and has AWD under $40k with freight? 

[sly]

Somewhere, someone asked what engines the Outlander had in Australia. Many more options here:
1. 2.4, same as Canada. May appear to have low numbers but the mid range torque and power is actually better than most competitors, so it is no slouch; you have to understand torque curves before judging by top end numbers alone;
2. 3.0, same as in Canada;
3. 2.0 diesel;
4. PHEV; it is considered so good, that Mitsu can't build enough for demand... but pricey;

I guess the issue is that in Canada we want luxury and "sport handling trucks", not counting multi media gismos. Here, not so much. The tarmac often ends and Australians like something that will keep going on touch roads. Mitsus do really good in the rough here and are very reliable.

[Trainman]

...

Read the comments.  See what the testers liked/disliked.  Consider what's important for you.  If we disliked the engine, but a different one is available (I4 vs V6 Cherokee, for example), then adjust your weighting of that comment accordingly.  If reliability doesn't matter for you (i.e. you lease for 36 months on a car with a 36 month warranty), then our comments about the Cherokee don't matter and it should jump up on your list.

Almost none of us had identical rankings for all 7 positions.  Consider that when reading.

OK, so where is the comparison chart that shows how they all ranked by category/reviewer?  Several posters to this topic have asked for it but it is not forthcoming yet.

I think the best comparison would have been equal MSRP rather than "trim" level.  I realize this may be tough as it would depend on the manufactures being able to supply test vehicles to fit a specific price point, but would have equaled the playing field a bit more allowing an oranges to oranges comparison rather than the corn to apples the article hints at.

[Noto]

...

Read the comments.  See what the testers liked/disliked.  Consider what's important for you.  If we disliked the engine, but a different one is available (I4 vs V6 Cherokee, for example), then adjust your weighting of that comment accordingly.  If reliability doesn't matter for you (i.e. you lease for 36 months on a car with a 36 month warranty), then our comments about the Cherokee don't matter and it should jump up on your list.

Almost none of us had identical rankings for all 7 positions.  Consider that when reading.

OK, so where is the comparison chart that shows how they all ranked by category/reviewer?  Several posters to this topic have asked for it but it is not forthcoming yet.

I think the best comparison would have been equal MSRP rather than "trim" level.  I realize this may be tough as it would depend on the manufactures being able to supply test vehicles to fit a specific price point, but would have equaled the playing field a bit more allowing an oranges to oranges comparison rather than the corn to apples the article hints at.

1) I don't have access to this chart that you are all requesting.
2) Re: equal MSRP, you need to understand what it takes to get these vehicles together.  By assigning points to 'value' and 'features', we can 'adjust' for what you say here.  It's also really hard to do, as you know, some dealers discount cars more heavily than others.

What we did here was get most vehicles as similar as possible (with the Forester being the low-trim exception, and my comments are clear regarding that) and test as best we could given the discrepancies.  The Santa Fe had 'all'-season tires on, whereas the Forester had WS80s.  On dry pavement limits testing, the Forester broke loose at a lower speed than the Santa Fe, but if we did a snowy hill climb or braking distance test, it would have been no question that the WS80s would have prevailed.  There are simply some things that cannot be controlled by the wonderful autos.ca folks, and others that they try and work around.  I think they did a marvellous job, a tremendous amount of work, and produced something that explains the highs and lows of each vehicle tested.

[Solstice2006]

^ We aren't asking you for the chart.  We are asking the people that write the articles...

[Noto]

^ We aren't asking you for the chart.  We are asking the people that write the articles...

[Solstice2006]

Maybe you will get promoted next time, and have access to the charts...

[tooscoops]

pshhh... stop wasting your time speaking to this lowly "tester"... psshhhaw... i fart in your general direction....

[DriverJeff]

pshhh... stop wasting your time speaking to this lowly "tester"... psshhhaw... i fart in your general direction....

Hey now!  Noto's role in this is very important!  Mr. Yarkony demands his coffee be piping hot and Ms Wimbush demands her hair be brushed a minimum of 40 times throughout the day. 

[Noto]

pshhh... stop wasting your time speaking to this lowly "tester"... psshhhaw... i fart in your general direction....

Hey now!  Noto's role in this is very important!  Mr. Yarkony demands his coffee be piping hot and Ms Wimbush demands her hair be brushed a minimum of 40 times throughout the day.

...and Jeff demands that all seasons of Departures and Descending be watched religiously.

[tooscoops]

you should want to do that anyways......

[emg]

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.

Depends on what you're looking for. If you want a car packed with gadgets, it's a bad choice. If you want to be able to drive in snow and ice without noticing, buy a Forester and stick some good snow tires on it, and you're done.

As to why we bought the Touring:

1. Had the level of gadgetry we wanted, didn't have anything we didn't want.
2. Dubious about direct-injection turbos in Canadian winters (e.g. fuel dilution of the oil).
3. Girlfriend didn't like driving the Turbo much.
4. Didn't like the XT Touring seats, and the XT Limited was significantly more expensive than the 2.5 Touring.
5. I figured the additional cost of the XT over the life of the car would pay for me to buy a real used sports car for the summer. The XT may accelerate faster, but it still goes round corners like a whale on wheels when compared to a real sports car.

[Noto]

As to why we bought the Touring:

4. Didn't like the XT Touring seats, and the XT Limited was significantly more expensive than the 2.5 Touring.

You didn't like the seats in the XT Touring, but you liked them in the 2.5i Touring?

...you realize they're the EXACT same seats, right?