Author Topic: Comparison Test: Five compact CUVs  (Read 44997 times)

vdk

  • Guest

Offline jspeed

  • Learner's Permit
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Carma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Comparison Test: Five compact CUVs
« Reply #121 on: March 22, 2012, 02:12:48 pm »
Nice review. I wish the CR-V and CX-5 had smaller turning circles.  (about 2-3 ft difference from the RAV4 and Tucson)

Offline Ex-airbalancer

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 40151
  • Carma: +729/-1584
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2011 Silverado 1500 LTZ ext ended cab , 2013 Lexus RX-350 F Sport
Re: Comparison Test: Five compact CUVs
« Reply #122 on: March 22, 2012, 03:02:23 pm »
Nice review. I wish the CR-V and CX-5 had smaller turning circles.  (about 2-3 ft difference from the RAV4 and Tucson)

Get a Scion IQ  iQ's 3.9 metre turning radius is the smallest of any car on the market, allowing you to make that turn - even with cars parked on both sides of the street. iQ might just make 3-point turns a thing of the past

 :rofl2:

Offline dirtyjeffer

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 17120
  • Carma: +296/-1312
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2021 Toyota Venza Limited, 2016 Kia Sorento EX AWD
Re: Comparison Test: Five compact CUVs
« Reply #123 on: March 22, 2012, 03:28:51 pm »
oh no...not this again...stop talking about the iQ...my carma score took a beating from that thread. ;) :P
When you've lost the argument, admit defeat and hit the smite button.

Offline Fobroader

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 35380
  • Carma: +1424/-2114
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2022 Honda Ridgeline, 2021 Lexus GX460, 2018 Kawasaki Versys X300
Re: Comparison Test: Five compact CUVs
« Reply #124 on: March 22, 2012, 03:52:28 pm »
oh no...not this again...stop talking about the iQ...my carma score took a beating from that thread. ;) :P

LMAO.....uhhh yeah!
Lighten up Francis.....

Offline dkaz

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 13923
  • Carma: +289/-388
  • Gender: Male
  • Flip flop
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 12 Mazda 5 GT 6MT
Re: Comparison Test: Five compact CUVs
« Reply #125 on: March 22, 2012, 06:51:44 pm »
Nice review. I wish the CR-V and CX-5 had smaller turning circles.  (about 2-3 ft difference from the RAV4 and Tucson)

Better steering response often comes at the expense of turning radii.

Offline sacrat

  • Auto Obsessed
  • ***
  • Posts: 748
  • Carma: +21/-64
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2018 Ford Escape Titanium; 2014 Ford Fusion Titanium AWD;2014 Hyundai Elantra GL ; 2012 Infiniti G37X
Re: Comparison Test: Five compact CUVs
« Reply #126 on: March 23, 2012, 12:25:54 am »


[/quote]
lol, no big deal.  We were very grateful to have one located.  Now on to the next comparo....

smaller vehicles......
bigger field.......
more autos.ca writers.....
[/quote]

Dear Autos.ca. Please find my application as a volunteer tester below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIcHXgY0KKo

Thank you for your consideration...

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline X-Traction

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1981
  • Carma: +58/-96
  • member
    • View Profile
Re: Comparison Test: Five compact CUVs
« Reply #127 on: March 23, 2012, 12:29:16 am »
+2  ::)  FWIW, I expect the RAV4 with the 4 cylinder would have finished dead last.  The V6 was about the best thing the RAV had going for it.  Fuel consumption didn't trail some of the other 4-pots that badly, given the huge advantage in power. 


Tirelessly stated: Only a small fraction of Rav4's are sold with the V6.  So a comparison using the V6 is not representative of the typical owner experience. 

The V6 Rav4's have a V6 badge on the grille, the 4-cyl does not have that.  So it's easy to do your own survey.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2012, 12:31:15 am by X-Traction »
And some cretins think I hate cars.

Offline sacrat

  • Auto Obsessed
  • ***
  • Posts: 748
  • Carma: +21/-64
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2018 Ford Escape Titanium; 2014 Ford Fusion Titanium AWD;2014 Hyundai Elantra GL ; 2012 Infiniti G37X
Re: Comparison Test: Five compact CUVs
« Reply #128 on: March 23, 2012, 11:05:21 am »
+2  ::)  FWIW, I expect the RAV4 with the 4 cylinder would have finished dead last.  The V6 was about the best thing the RAV had going for it.  Fuel consumption didn't trail some of the other 4-pots that badly, given the huge advantage in power. 


Tirelessly stated: Only a small fraction of Rav4's are sold with the V6.  So a comparison using the V6 is not representative of the typical owner experience. 

The V6 Rav4's have a V6 badge on the grille, the 4-cyl does not have that.  So it's easy to do your own survey.

It seems to me that the "four" may have fared better since the V6 overwhelms the chassis. Isn't it possible the four would actually feel better balanced with less power and less weight over the front wheels. An actual test of such a unit would be the only quantitative way to know for sure.

FWIW the V6 seems to account for 25-30% around Calgary, possibly because owners prefer more power for mountain driving, but more likely because we're just way richer than the rest of the country  ;D

Offline Mike

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 5323
  • Carma: +172/-99
  • Gender: Male
  • Lurker
    • View Profile
  • Cars: A Beater and an Ascent
Re: Comparison Test: Five compact CUVs
« Reply #129 on: March 23, 2012, 11:23:06 am »



lol, no big deal.  We were very grateful to have one located.  Now on to the next comparo....

smaller vehicles......
bigger field.......
more autos.ca writers.....

Quote

Dear Autos.ca. Please find my application as a volunteer tester below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIcHXgY0KKo

Thank you for your consideration...



 :rofl2:

Offline kenm

  • Auto Obsessed
  • ***
  • Posts: 579
  • Carma: +18/-8
    • View Profile
Re: Comparison Test: Five compact CUVs
« Reply #130 on: March 23, 2012, 11:26:39 am »

The desirability of the Rav4 V6 is raised considerably if one has a towing requirement. It has a tow rating of 3500 lbs., and I can tell you from experience, that it tows 2500 lbs. quite effortlessly.

"I paid my four bits to see the high-diving act and I'm a-gonna see the high-diving act. "  Yosemite Sam

Offline Fobroader

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 35380
  • Carma: +1424/-2114
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2022 Honda Ridgeline, 2021 Lexus GX460, 2018 Kawasaki Versys X300
Re: Comparison Test: Five compact CUVs
« Reply #131 on: March 23, 2012, 11:38:20 am »
I am the exact opposite, if I were to buy one of the little toy SUVs, I would go for the bigger engine. 4 people plus luggage plus the AWD drivetrain would kill most of the 4 bangers . Thats just me though, I like having the ability to pass on a undivided, 2 lane highway.

Offline Trainman

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 6598
  • Carma: +24/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Tree Whisperer
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2016 Subaru Forester XT; 2017 Infiniti QX50; 2012 Toyota RAV4 Base AWD, the daughters car
Re: Comparison Test: Five compact CUVs
« Reply #132 on: March 23, 2012, 11:53:42 am »
The availability of the V6 in the RAV will be playing a big role in my wife's decision.  She too likes to have a bit extra if needed.  However, I have not really wanted for more power in the Forester, even when loaded with canoe, kayak, camping gear and 4 people.  You just need to be willing to use the engine as Subaru intended, and just make it sing.  It will run all day at 3,800-4,000 rpm in 3rd gear (ie 110 kph) and not really hit you too bad for fuel consumption.
2016 Subaru Forester XT

Offline SaskSpecV

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 2322
  • Carma: +87/-149
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2015 Subaru Forester Touring 6MT, 2009 Hyundai Elantra Touring GLsport 5MT, 2009 GMC Sierra 2500 6.0L
Re: Comparison Test: Five compact CUVs
« Reply #133 on: March 23, 2012, 12:23:51 pm »
:rofl2:

Hey Mike when are we seeing that Golf Wagon review?  Can't get enough wagons on this site! 

From the "Not-mythical-but-still-apparently-very-rare-manual-transmission-wagon-fanclub"

The "Diesel" subchapter of the NMBSAVRMTWF will be especially excited for your review, though the "AWD" subchapter will once again be disappointed. C'est la vie.

Offline Mike

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 5323
  • Carma: +172/-99
  • Gender: Male
  • Lurker
    • View Profile
  • Cars: A Beater and an Ascent
Re: Comparison Test: Five compact CUVs
« Reply #134 on: March 23, 2012, 12:35:06 pm »
:rofl2:

Hey Mike when are we seeing that Golf Wagon review?  Can't get enough wagons on this site! 

From the "Not-mythical-but-still-apparently-very-rare-manual-transmission-wagon-fanclub"

The "Diesel" subchapter of the NMBSAVRMTWF will be especially excited for your review, though the "AWD" subchapter will once again be disappointed. C'est la vie.

I would expect in the next month.  I have a backlog of reviews to go out first - Grant Vitara, Forester, TSX 4-pot, Accord, then Golf TDI.    No manual either :(

Offline nlm

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1337
  • Carma: +58/-82
    • View Profile
Re: Comparison Test: Five compact CUVs
« Reply #135 on: March 23, 2012, 12:59:17 pm »
:rofl2:

Hey Mike when are we seeing that Golf Wagon review?  Can't get enough wagons on this site! 

From the "Not-mythical-but-still-apparently-very-rare-manual-transmission-wagon-fanclub"

The "Diesel" subchapter of the NMBSAVRMTWF will be especially excited for your review, though the "AWD" subchapter will once again be disappointed. C'est la vie.

The "AWD+D" (awd and diesel) subchapter will also be disappointed.

Offline SaskSpecV

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 2322
  • Carma: +87/-149
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2015 Subaru Forester Touring 6MT, 2009 Hyundai Elantra Touring GLsport 5MT, 2009 GMC Sierra 2500 6.0L
Re: Comparison Test: Five compact CUVs
« Reply #136 on: March 23, 2012, 02:36:54 pm »
The "AWD+D" (awd and diesel) subchapter will also be disappointed.

But aren't they always?!? :P  That group appears destined to live in perpetual disappointment, at least in North America...

Offline my2cents

  • Auto Obsessed
  • ***
  • Posts: 643
  • Carma: +8/-40
  • member
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2011 Rav4 AWD
Re: Comparison Test: Five compact CUVs
« Reply #137 on: March 23, 2012, 03:11:28 pm »
Being a pretty aggressive driver - I'm puzzled by the handling remarks of the Rav4.

However - that could be a good thing.

I avoided the v6 for a couple of reasons.

1. I know how I push the limits on a v8. I mean if you don't use the power then why buy it in the first place? "My shoe got stuck on the carpet officer - I didn't mean to fishtail and burn rubber the whole block."
2. There is a bigger difference in city driving fuel mileage and gas price is always going up.
3. I didn't want the Sports suspension because I wanted comfort.

If I bought the v6 I would have been tempted to opt for the sport suspension to handle the extra 200 pounds on the front end.

The Limited tested didn't have the sport suspension - so there is a choice between a softer ride or handling.

Besides - I've yet to find pylons to slalom through on the way to the mall and back. But it works around potholes and bicycles without a problem and I don't spill my drink.

I had an old Ford convertible that I cut the coil springs so it was about an inch off the ground. That car handled better than a go-cart. A compressed spine was a side-effect.


Offline X-Traction

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1981
  • Carma: +58/-96
  • member
    • View Profile
Re: Comparison Test: Five compact CUVs
« Reply #138 on: March 23, 2012, 07:07:20 pm »
I am the exact opposite, if I were to buy one of the little toy SUVs, I would go for the bigger engine. 4 people plus luggage plus the AWD drivetrain would kill most of the 4 bangers . Thats just me though, I like having the ability to pass on a undivided, 2 lane highway.

Not to accuse you of any driving deficency, but there's a huge difference on driver ability to overtake on undivided 2-lane highways.   We all know or see people who can't do it at all, not even on the 2-lane uphills.

A few years ago with us in our recent Grand Vitara, another party in anther recent Grand Vitara chose to pace us for several hours through BC's interior in summer traffic on 2-lane roads with 100km+ speed limits.  This meant working our way past convoys of slightly slower traffic, including plenty of semis.

The Grand Vitara is no sports car, and ours, at least, was loaded with passengers and camping gear. 

Passing distances were greatly reduced by technique: leaving a larger gap to the vehicle ahead when going into a curve, and closing the gap when coming out of the bend.  The moment it was possible to see there was a passing opportunity free of oncoming traffic after the curve, I'd floor it.  The driver of the other GV behind me did the same thing, sometimes losing a place if there wasn't room for both of us to pass, or if I could make it past one more vehicle than they could, sometimes gaining it back.  We'd work our way past each convoy, usually with a semi being the last to be passed, and enjoy some open road before coming up behind another convoy.

We stopped for gas, and lost them.  They must have stopped somewhere, because they showed up behind us again, and the passing resumed.

The point being that horsepower can be bought to substitute for technique, and even supposedly "underpowered" cars have plenty of power by any reasonable standards.

Quickly getting back to the subject at hand, I suspect the V6 Rav4 would have a seriously inferior weight distribution and so would be really bad on slippery surfaces and in snow.

Mustachio

  • Guest
Re: Comparison Test: Five compact CUVs
« Reply #139 on: March 23, 2012, 10:48:07 pm »

+2  ::)  FWIW, I expect the RAV4 with the 4 cylinder would have finished dead last.  The V6 was about the best thing the RAV had going for it.  Fuel consumption didn't trail some of the other 4-pots that badly, given the huge advantage in power. 

This guy seems to think that all models of all vehicles in all trims were sitting there, available for the taking, and some were just capriciously ignored and left out.  Life must really be good on his home world.  :)

Jaeger
Life really is great on my planet. There are websites here on Earth that go the extra mile to ensure all competitive models are present for comparison tests and that they are similarly optioned so as to have a fair basis of comparison.

I'm a big believer in "if you can't do it right, don't do it." Based on some of the replies I've read here, most of you would think it's perfectly OK for autos.ca to do a muscle car comparo pitting a V8-powered Camaro SS against a Mustang V6 , not bother to bring along the Dodge Challenger (no different than comparing the V6 RAV4 to every other CUV in the test, which by-the-way left half the other models on the market in the parking lot) and try to pass it off to everyone as fair. I can understand some of the justifications here, like the exclusion of the Escape, with a replacement from Ford just on the horizon, and maybe the Sportage's absence for reasons stated earlier (but not the "smaller volumes" excuse provided at the end of the article - the CX-5 has only been on the market a couple of months, has it really sold that many more units than the Sportage to warrant inclusion?). But at least one of the GM twins should have been represented, as well as VW's Tiguan and Mitsubishi's RVR. Maybe it would never have affected the end result, but the only way we will ever know is by going to another website  ;).

I also found it curious that there was no mention of testing the AWD capabilities of this select group. How can you pronounce a comparison winner in this group when one of the main attractions to these CUV's is their enhanced capabilities in poor-traction conditions and not test this?

We've been promised a rematch when Ford's new model arrives. Hopefully it will be more thorough than this "4 Apples, 1 Orange" matchup.