Topic: Comparison Test: Compact Crossover SUVs

[blotter]

great review, nice read.

i'd only like to see the opinions on the looks of the cars left out.
each individual review states one opnion on the looks of another and that gets contradicted in the next article.  Opinion on looks as well all know is pretty subjective and I'm not sure if a score should be given for that?   I guess maybe only the Mistsu is the car everyone would agree on 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I'm not sure I looked at the same cars you guys tested. For me the Escape with the 2.0L was far and away my favoutite.
It was quick, quiet, comfortable, handled very well and had a nice interior.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Too bad this test could not include the new Cherokee. It would have been interesting to see how it would have ranked with the V6 and 9-speed auto which can be had for a little less than $35k.

Isn't that a little big for this crowd?

If you include the Santa Fe, the Cherokee should be included too.

It wasn't the Santa Fe XL though, it was the little Santa Fe.

The Cherokee is a five seater and comes with a 4 or 6 cylinder. It's pretty close in size.

Technically, the Tuscon should have been the Hyundai in this test as it's the compact in Hyundai's lineup. The Santa Fe is about the same size as the Edge or Venza.

[whaddaiknow]

Surprised the Santa Fe finished 5th and the CRV was 2nd. CRV is the oldest of the buch, and it would be still a strong middle-of-the-pack contender in my books.

I would rank them

1) Santa Fe
2) Escape = CX5 = RAV4
3) CRV (because of older sub-par tech)
...
13) Outlander

[greengs]

Too bad this test could not include the new Cherokee. It would have been interesting to see how it would have ranked with the V6 and 9-speed auto which can be had for a little less than $35k.

Isn't that a little big for this crowd?

If you include the Santa Fe, the Cherokee should be included too.

It wasn't the Santa Fe XL though, it was the little Santa Fe.

Even the non XL Santa Fe has the exact same wheelbase as the Jeep Cherokee.  All the other dimensions are very close.  You may be thinking of the Jeep Grand Cherokee which is bigger. 

[johngenx]

I've found that the actually driving and owning experience usually has nothing to do with the buried technology unless it causes a real performance gap.  Subaru engine management sucked for a long time, and so fuel economy suffered in their products.

How does the so-called "old tech" of the fairly new CR-V compromise it's performance or the experience to the driver?  Seems to me that it's a super competitive product.

[dkaz]

I consider the Outlander and Santa Fe midsize crossovers. The CR-V seems to be an in betweener, somewhere between a compact and a midsize.

[JacobBlack]

Even the non XL Santa Fe has the exact same wheelbase as the Jeep Cherokee.  All the other dimensions are very close.  You may be thinking of the Jeep Grand Cherokee which is bigger.

Woops.
 

[blotter]

^^^

wonder if you guys would even have been able to get one.
i'm certainly looking forward to a review on the new Cherokee (it won't win in the looks department  )

in fairness, i'm sure you can have a pretty long round table debate as to which SUV / CUV to include.
the segments / sizes are really getting blurred. 

[civic_hybrid]

great review and write up guys!
Steve, thanks for the Red Green quote! really made me laugh. maybe the outlander should come with a few rolls of duct tape next to the spare tire!

Im not surprised with the number of comparisons these CUVs are getting here at autos. They are the fastest growing segment of all sales in Canada and US. Look at the number of models in this "small" segment. Just looking at the reviews people are potentially cross shopping almost a dozen models, Dodge, Jeep, Chevy, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Ford, Honda, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Subaru, etc!!!
Wow. I cant imagine cross shopping that many vehicles even to pick a regular compact sedan...

Thanks again editors/writers.

[Noto]

But c’mon, the Subaru didn’t even come to this 35-grand family-friendly party with a rear camera, super handy proximity entry or a massive panoramic sunroof, all of which come standard on the SE 2.0T model Santa Fe tested here

For the 2014 Forester XT Limited, every model except the base indeed have a rear-view camera and massive panoramic sunroof.  The article even later quotes "(Another useful-to-know stat: the Forester placed second for its sightlines. With its included rear-view camera, you’re in a good place.)"

The Forester scored low on observed fuel economy but fortunately this exceptional engine runs on regular gasoline

If you had used the premium stuff, would the fuel economy not have been better in a high compression-ratio vehicle?  It's Premium RECOMMENDED (i.e. works with regular, but is optimized for Premium) as opposed to the 2009-2013, which was Premium REQUIRED (i.e. doesn't work with regular).


As for the comparo itself, great job, as always!  In such a crowded segment, I think you did a wonderful job with the inclusions.  I, personally, would have opted for a different ranking, but that's because I, personally, am a different individual with different requirements - welcome to the world of the manufacturers (pleasing all, while offending none?).  For example, I value power and features over exterior style or fuel economy - so the CR-V wouldn't have even been in the runnings for me (though a great vehicle).  The Rav4 is the ugliest thing I've ever seen, yet Lesly states the contrary (a perfectly respectable opinion).  The Mistu will only become relevant when the Plug-in variant comes hither - carving its own niche.  The CX-5 is great - gimme a turbo or a (turbo)diesel and I may forgive its poor(er) sightlines to the Forester's.  I can't say I agree that the Tiguan has better sightlines than the Forester though - agree to disagree (then again, I can't say the Forester is the best looking of the bunch, but do appreciate the Subie-love).  The Santa Fe is feature rich - no doubt - but fuel economy and overstyling (poor sightlines) will forever seal its fate for me.

This is a very crowded segment, and the end of the article points out strengths of each, which is why they all sell.  When someone comes to me to ask which 'ute they should get, I first ask "how much ya got", then "how big do ya want", then any special requirements (power, fuel, tech, etc). 

I'll be leasing another 'ute in either December or April...my big players are the CX-5 GT and the Forester XT Limited.  Still, if I could build my perfect unit:

Exterior of the CX-5, front interior of the Subaru (I like practicality and no-nonsense), tech of the Santa Fe, engine of the Forester, transmission of the Rav4, rear-interior of the Rav4, and fuel economy of the CX-5 

[Vanstar]

I've found that the actually driving and owning experience usually has nothing to do with the buried technology unless it causes a real performance gap.  Subaru engine management sucked for a long time, and so fuel economy suffered in their products.

How does the so-called "old tech" of the fairly new CR-V compromise it's performance or the experience to the driver?  Seems to me that it's a super competitive product.

The "old tech" of the CRV doesn't seem to affect its sales. It's always either number one or two. I, personally, love old tech in cars. I prefer others to do product testing for me.

[Northernridge]

The cheapest (as-tested) CUV finished last, the most expensive second last and all the others were pretty much the same price. I'd have thought the turbo Forrester would have been more expensive than the others...it would be my choice in the mix because I think it can stand up to a little soft-core offroading.

I have first hand experience with the CRV and it made a good impressions on me so I'm not surprised to see it near the top.

[SaskSpecV]

Another great comparison, autos.ca folks.  One request - would it be possible to do a chart of relevant specs for the various competitors? That's one of my favourite aspects of C&D comparisons, the handy charts to compare dimensions/engine output/cargo space, etc.  I realise there are links to the various MNFR websites, and anyone can use the car comparison tools on those websites to do the comparisons, but it might be handy to have a chart right on the autos.ca review. (i.e., how much bigger is the Sante Fe than the Tiguan?)  OTOH, the comparative pictures (i.e., bag and step ladder in the cargo area) are awesome.

And one question - how good are the MNFRs at providing vehicles that actually meet your price points?  I realise that ALL the MNFRs seem to want to provide the highest-trim vehicles for reviews.  But at looking at the vehicle prices in this test (Outlander excluded), all were close to $37K (or more) with freight and PDI.  So > $40K with tax - yet I would guess that the sales distribution of these CUVs is heavily skewed towards the lower- or mid-priced trims.  But if autos.ca asked for an entry- or mid-level CUV for a comparison test, with a $27K or $30K hard cap (freight included) - would the MNFRs provide you such a vehicle for a comparison test?  Or do they encourage you to only test their loaded models?

[whaddaiknow]

The cheapest (as-tested) CUV finished last, the most expensive second last and all the others were pretty much the same price. I'd have thought the turbo Forrester would have been more expensive than the others...it would be my choice in the mix because I think it can stand up to a little soft-core offroading.

I have first hand experience with the CRV and it made a good impressions on me so I'm not surprised to see it near the top.

Agree with you on the CRV. I am kinda a Honda slappie and defended it vehemently against the Escape after the first two rounds because it's that good. But time doesn't stand still and Honda is lagging behind on the technology front. The NAV is outdated. In fact, Honda outsourced its NAV and media electronics to a third party, and it doens't integrate well with the rest of the car. It is more like a standalone feature. I have an Odyssey and a Crosstour with the same interface. A friend of mine has the '12 TL with Tech, and his is just as "limited" as mine.

Examples:
- the screen is low-res.
- when you play the music, the titles are limited to a few characters and do not scroll so they are cut off.
- the temperature guage is not permanently dispalyed, you have to toggle the trip button on the guage cluster in order to get to it.

Little things like that won't allow me to put it on the top spot as much as I love my Honda's
Same goes to the RAV. The screen is small and low-res and glares even in overcast conditions. I found it unacceptable in the Avalon but in the RAV it is just a quibble.

[sacrat]

  And the main reason they had another comparo is because most of these were significantly updated since the last comparo, or are a new generation.  The only reason Honda come back was because it was the winner last time, and thus a benchmark, same with the VW, and this time it was brought at a lower trim level. 

I appreciated the review, but have to agree with some others here that the Escape MUST be included by virtue of decimating all others on the sales chart. That's a "benchmark" that can't be ignored

http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2013/08/canada-small-suv-crossover-sales-figures-july-2013-ytd.html

[cruzzer]

Very useful review in a very important segment of the Canadian car market. I was a bit surprised that the Forester finished as low as it did, but as noted it wasn't far off the pace compared to the bulk of the competition. I wonder how many buyers are looking at the $37k versions of these CUV vs. the $28k versions?  For me it boils down to manual transmissions. And that leaves the base CX-5 FWD and the non XT Forester. The CX-5 is beautiful, efficient and highly regarded, but with no manual in AWD, it's looking more and more like another Forester for us.

[LoveToDrive]

I watched this whole segment for a couple of years before making my final decision.

Here were my overall impressions:
CRV:   Did not like at all, mainly due to the styling.   I brought myself to the dealership to sit in one, but couldn't even bring myself to drive it.   Again, looks are completely subjective so no offense to anyone owning a CRV.  I love Hondas, and was trading in a 13 year old Accord that never gave me a moments trouble.

RAV4:  I quite liked it for its price point (XLE had most of what I wanted).   I drove one with the upgraded Nav.   The stereo sounded really good, the interior was nice but I worried about owning one with the vinyl stitching pieced on the dash and how it would stand up to wear and tear.  If you read many reviews and user forums, you will also find that almost everyone says the screen is extremely difficult to see in daylight due to its placement (no cover for shielding) and lack of brightness.   

I also found the rear seat in the RAV4 although having tons of legroom has very little rear seat hip room .. to the point where the center seat seems almost unusable.  Its almost a 4 seater rather than 5 seater.

Santa Fe:   Really liked the exterior styling, and cargo capacity was great.   But I think Hyundai really cheap-out on the infotainment screen.   No backup camera unless you go to at least the SE, and still in that case its the size of an iphone 4.   Stereo was also awful.  I stuck with driving the 4 cylinder as I keep my vehicles a long time and don't want a turbo long term. I don't even see the point of turbo's (vs a V6) since they have turbo lag and observed fuel economy always seems to be lower than published by EPA.

CX-5:  This was always the front runner for me.   Liked mostly everything about it.  In the end I was worried about the reports of road noise, and although the back seat was wide, the rear seat legroom was only adequate and so I'd be getting lots of kicks in the back from my two kids while driving.

In the end, I left the category completely and went upmarket and bought an Acura RDX (shows you the car buying decision - at least for me - wasn't completely logical), but had I stayed in this category I would have picked the CX-5.

[Blueprint]

This will get me more "-"'s in my tally, but I'll rate that comparo as midly useless.

Again, target price to high. Top trims don't sell all that well. Price point should have been 30k$, with cloth seats mandatory, reflecting the bulk of the market. No turbos (when possible), no sixes (ditto).

Observed fuel economy is a major data regarding purchasing decision, and we don't even get it for all vehicles.

[tooscoops]

when a cherokee becomes available (which should be in a week or two.. finally!) do a comparison between it and the escape with a nod to these results... that would be super helpful i would think to many people...

as said previously, good job! tough to compare this many cars...

+'s
doing your best to get equally priced cars
pics with the same stuff in the back
enough categories to let everyone have a chance to show their strengths

-'s
priced higher than most people are looking, we all pay freight so only one came in under your cap of 35
fuel usage not listed very uniformly
would be super annoying to do, but a mention of rebates/rates and such would help potential buyers

overall.. great job on the review... and good job mazda. it does seem to be a pretty darn good vehicle in a tough, congested category.

as for your issues blue... i agree, but not the 4's-6's stuff... people will get the best equipped with their cash available, so i say put the "best" engine and equipment in at the tested price.