Topic: Comparison Test: Five compact CUVs

[Autos_Editor]

We tested five popular compact crossover utility vehicles back to back.  Can you guess the winner?

Read More...

[sailor723]

Great article...one of the best I've read on this site! I hope to see more like this in the future. I realize the logistics of getting five cars together must have been a challange. Maybe future articles could feature things like "the top two sellers in a class going head to head" or "MB vs BMW vs Audi" etc ?

As to the results its somewhat encouraging for automotive design that the two newest CUV's finished on top. At least cars are continuing to get better! 

[Ex-airbalancer]

funny how Rav4 lost points since it had the highest l/100km since it was only one with v6 but only a bit higher then some with a 4

Rav really needs a make over the interior does suck, but it the only one you can stand up a cart in

besides that nice review

[Thinking Out Loud]

Very well done....after the 36 month Minivan Comparison Test you did last time this is a concise and well written piece for people comparison shopping in this class.  Mentioning the non-runners is good as you acknowledge them and why they were not included, rather than simply pretending as if they don't exist. 

Didn't realise the current generation RAV 4 was THAT old....but then again I still remember the original RAV 4 with it's Suzuki Samurai like soft top.





Great job!

[CanuckS2K]

Great article Mike, well done!  I too would love to see more comparos like this.

[jaman]

This is a nice round-up of CUVs. I guess anyone really interested in making a purchase from this category should test drive all of them (or at least most of them) before making a personal decision.

From the article, it sounded like only the CX-5 had winter tires, is that true? All the reviews I read (and personal experience with the GT model on 19-in wheels) say that the CX-5 is a stand-out in the chassis dynamics area. I suppose the winter tires really do kill it, though I'm a bit surprised that it's that bad. My Protege5 on winter tires (no-name 8yr old ones to boot) is still really fun to drive and it's clear that compared to a Corolla of the same vintage is much more engaging to drive.

Anyways, great article. Look forward to more comparison tests. By the way, you guys should invest in some tech gear to measure the typical performance figures. For me, a car's ability to make sudden changes in direction with composure and brake in short distances is somewhat akin to a safety feature.

[chrischasescars]

Great article Mike, well done!  I too would love to see more comparos like this.

Mike and Jon are working hard at organizing more comparos. There's at least one more in the works that I know of.

[CanuckS2K]

Great article Mike, well done!  I too would love to see more comparos like this.

Mike and Jon are working hard at organizing more comparos. There's at least one more in the works that I know of.

Excellent, that's great news Chris!   

[Mike]

Great article Mike, well done!  I too would love to see more comparos like this.

Mike and Jon are working hard at organizing more comparos. There's at least one more in the works that I know of.

Excellent, that's great news Chris!   

Chris said he is game for that one, so hopefully it works out.  There is a mini head-to-head in about a month than a bigger one in two months.  These are fun to do and I always like reading them so that is why we would like to continue to do them.

[Mike]

This is a nice round-up of CUVs. I guess anyone really interested in making a purchase from this category should test drive all of them (or at least most of them) before making a personal decision.

From the article, it sounded like only the CX-5 had winter tires, is that true? All the reviews I read (and personal experience with the GT model on 19-in wheels) say that the CX-5 is a stand-out in the chassis dynamics area. I suppose the winter tires really do kill it, though I'm a bit surprised that it's that bad. My Protege5 on winter tires (no-name 8yr old ones to boot) is still really fun to drive and it's clear that compared to a Corolla of the same vintage is much more engaging to drive.

Anyways, great article. Look forward to more comparison tests. By the way, you guys should invest in some tech gear to measure the typical performance figures. For me, a car's ability to make sudden changes in direction with composure and brake in short distances is somewhat akin to a safety feature.

The RAV4, the Rogue and the CX-5 were on winters while the Tucson and CR-V were on summers.  The CX-5 seemed to have the softest rubber.  In a future rematch, we hope to bring the CX-5 back in GT spec.

[Jaeger]

I've been looking forward to this!  Going to take my time and read through it all.

Jaeger

[redman]

Seems like the Mazda CX-5 could use the 2.5L engine with the "Sky-Active treatment" in this platform and a little more tweaking of the handling setup should make it an easy winner. Now if your looking for real low end torque, bring on the Sky-Active-Diesel and we've got a party.
Looks like a real winner for Mazda considering it's there first kick at the can since going with there own (non-Ford) small CUV.

[wing]

Tyou guys should invest in some tech gear to measure the typical performance figures.

I actually have some devices to do this.  The problem is finding a venue, you can't just line up cars on a road and start doing brake slalom and acceleration tests.

[Bullet Blue]

  Mentioning the non-runners is good as you acknowledge them and why they were not included, rather than simply pretending as if they don't exist. 

Yup, smart move to do that. Put to rest any accusations of bias in the article.

It's too bad the Rogue's tranny is such a pain, it seems to be aging fairly well.

[5 Wheel Drive]

Great article guys!  No surprise to see the Rogue at the bottom.  We didn't even consider going to look at one when we bought the Forester.  Didn't like the interior of the Rav either.  Too bad the timing didn't work out to be able to include the Forester in the comparo.  I'm really looking forward to a future one that will include the new Escape.  I was totally floored by the Escape at the Toronto auto show...WOW!

[Winterpeg]

Will "echo" my opinion with everybody.......great job with the comparo!
Not too surprized with the results for Rogue (dated interior, that piece of c@%p cvt), Rav4 (ditto for interior) but thought Tucson might do better and CX5 being top dog.....not so thanks to Honda bringing their "A" game back for the CRV redux.
Again well done by the staff of Autos.ca.   

[wing]

Totally biased review! No american cars!! ... just kidding.  Good job guys.

[jyarkony]

Tyou guys should invest in some tech gear to measure the typical performance figures.

I actually have some devices to do this.  The problem is finding a venue, you can't just line up cars on a road and start doing brake slalom and acceleration tests.

You can't? I told you so, Mike... oops

I downloaded a g-meter and decibel meter for my iPhone since the test (it was only after the test that we were really arguing about interior noise levels), but I remember reading about a couple of apps that are more comprehensive, so i need to research that again—anyone here have any that they'd recommend?

[jyarkony]

Totally biased review! No american cars!! ... just kidding.  Good job guys.

so, good job of being totally biased and excluding American makes? Thanks! 

No American makes, but RAV4 is built in Woodstock, Ont. and CR-V in Alliston, Ont.

[Mike]

Totally biased review! No american cars!! ... just kidding.  Good job guys.

so, good job of being totally biased and excluding American makes? Thanks! 

No American makes, but RAV4 is built in Woodstock, Ont. and CR-V in Alliston, Ont.

Flag Waver.......