Oh dear...Not surprised about 4 or 5, but very interesting showing about #1.
I get it - we almost always score the Nissans high, and for good reason: interiors are nice places to be, value seems to be there, and the handling is typically above-average. That said, the fuel economy issue is, I think, a bit downplayed here, as is the power issue. I maintain that the 2.5L should be fitted instead of the pokey 2.0L.
The scoring is tight everywhere, confirming, as always, that these machines differ more in a subjective way than objective. They're all quite competent, offering slightly different feature sets, and will get the job done.
I find it odd, though, that:
The CX-3 is the most car-like here, and it’s also the smallest in terms of cargo volume and passenger volume by a considerable margin.
...for sure the passenger space is compromised, but your own info sheet shows the CX-3 having the second largest cargo volumes with rear seats both up and down. It's essentially tied with the Cashcow for space - how then is it dinged so heavily for cargo volume in terms of scoring?
My thought is that categories should be separated. I think you've gotten the weighting down quite well now, sort of:
Design and Ergonomics (15%), Seating and Cargo (20%), Features and Quality (20%), Ride Comfort and Handling (15%), Drivetrain Power and Refinement (10%), Fuel Economy (10%), Value and Appeal (10%).
...but why would design (subjective thoughts on looks) be tied together with ergonomics? Would a car with fantastic ergonomics not then score low or mid-pack if you disagree with its styling (like was the case with the Crosstrek (negatiely) and Cashcow (positively))?
Similarly, if a car has poor passenger capacity, but comfortable seats and great cargo space, would it not then finish low or mid-pack?
I would do:
1. Design (5%)
2. Ergonomics (10%)
3. Seating (5%)
4. Cargo efficiency (10%)
5. Available Features (10%) (i.e. not just in the trim provided - cost can be considered in terms of value)
6. Ride Comfort (10%)
7. Handling (10%)
8. Steering Feel (5%)
9. Brake Feel (5%)
10. Power (10%)
11. Powertrain refinement (5%)
12. Fuel Economy (5%)
13. Value (10%)
...though no one category is necessarily worth more than 10%, failing to reflect that some things are more important than others to buyers, the categories themselves are often times related. That is, driveability relates to at least 5 of the separated categories above, whereas styling is limited to just one at 5% instead of making up to 15% in the current grouping.
Excuse my unsolicited advice, but I always have found some difficulties as an examiner during testing in terms of assigning points because a vehicle would perform well in one respect (e.g. handling), but then poorly in terms of another (e.g. ride comfort). Where it does well in one respect, but poorly in the other, it gets an "average" score that downplays the bad of one and the good of the other. Take the HRV, which Jil notes:
Most had somewhat loud rides, but the HR-V crashed and banged the worst over bumps. And that’s a shame, because I really liked the light-but-not-too-light steering and the car’s agile feel. On a slithery stretch at speed, I found the Honda did a much better job of hugging tight curves than the Crosstrek I’d driven right before it. For steering response and handling, I thought only the CX-3 did a better job.
So, good steering, poor ride comfort, good handling, yet the HRV tied last for ride comfort and handling - it doesn't give any credit to the good steering or handling that Jil mentions.
...and with "only the CX-3 [doing] a better job", the HRV scored a 7.4 where the CX-3 got a 7.5.
I simply feel like scoring would be less "tight" if individual criteria were singled out rather than grouped.
