Showing posts with label SUV Comparison Test. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SUV Comparison Test. Show all posts

Cars.com Midsize SUV Shootout; 2012 Honda CRV wins....

A quick reminder on the judges:
  • David Thomas, managing editor, Cars.com
  • Bill Jackson, senior editor, Cars.com
  • Jennifer Geiger, editor, Cars.com
  • Fred Meier, automotive editor, USA Today
  • Brian Robinson, producer, "MotorWeek"
  • Nicholas and Erin Ravelingeen, parents of two who are eager to replace their 2001 Chevrolet Tracker
Here's how the score broke down: 75% of the total was based on the experts' scores; 15% from the family's scores; and 10% was based on fuel economy. To help you make your own comparisons of these SUVs, we’ve pulled together a list of what you get for $25,000.
It was evident when the smoke cleared that all six of these compact SUVs were strong contenders, each in its own way. With a firm $25,000 price point, consumers could get many useful features, but no one SUV had all of them. The top three finishers were extremely close in scores, which is a testament to how hard it was to pick a winner in this class. If you're in the market for a compact SUV, focus on your top concerns, and certainly one of these will work for you.
No. 6 2013 Ford Escape, 693.5 Points
(See the scorecard, the Monroney sticker or research the 2013 Ford Escape)

What they liked: Even though the Escape came with fewer features than its competitors (our broker got us a no-frills base version, but we couldn't have gotten a different engine without topping our $25,000 maximum price), as a driving machine, it won over more than a few of our reviewers.

"The Escape's 2.5-liter feels spirited from a stop and has plenty of midrange punch," Geiger said. Jackson agreed: "The Escape excels in the vehicle dynamics category — the combination of ride, handling and acceleration — by managing to feel both composed and relaxed." Now, the new Escape ditches the pickup-truck look and feel of the previous generation, and that "unique" look (as Robinson said) appealed to our family testers, too.
"I like this shape much more than the old one." Erin said. "The old one wasn't even a contender because of the shape." One area of concern for several judges was the look of the second-row seats, but Meier discovered that "the thin-looking rear seat has a reclining back, and it is surprisingly comfy and roomy for two." In addition, Thomas noted that the "the cargo area is quite large with a low load floor."

What they didn't: Here's where the no-frills come to roost. The "2.5-liter engine [is] not nearly as nice as the available EcoBoost engines," Robinson said, but he added: "To get the Escape that I would actually want to own, I'd be pushing 30 grand, and at that point, I'm looking at bigger vehicles."

For Geiger, "the cabin is a disappointment: large, uneven panel gaps are obvious; hard plastic surfaces abound; and chintzy fabric makes the seats feel and look budget-grade." As usual, our Shootouts are about families and she noted a big fail in the second row: "There are no rear cupholders (except for the door-panel cubbies) and there's only one seatback pocket." Meier agreed. "There's just not enough useful storage for this segment." Clever underfoot storage in rear seats can't make up for the tiny console bin, lack of cubbies."
For Thomas, his biggest complaint was one we're really feeling in a steamy Midwestern summer. "Someone will have to walk me through how the air-conditioning vents work. They don't shoot air in the direction you think when adjusting them, and there are two above the HVAC controls that shoot air only toward your lap. I had a hard time getting comfortable on the longest driving portions of my test." Meier felt his own pain in a sensitive location: "The front seats are not rump-worthy for a long drive."

The verdict: "The base model is a black-plastic austerity plan," Meier said. "You have to pay more to get the real redesign, including new state-of-the-art engines."

Key Features
  • EPA-estimated 22/31 mpg city/highway; we observed 27.4 mpg combined (the second lowest mpg tested).
  • 68.1 cubic feet of maximum cargo space; 34.3 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seats (the second highest amount of combined cargo space in comparison)
  • Auxiliary input for audio system
  • Reclining second row
  • Only vehicle tested with wheel covers
  • Only vehicle tested without Bluetooth hands-free phone connectivity
  • Floor storage compartment in second row
  • No safety data available from NHTSA or IIHS yet
2013 Ford Escape Payment Facts
MSRP with destination fee: $23,295
Monthly payment: $479.16*
Cheapest car in Shootout

Find a 2013 Ford Escape near you
No. 5 2012 Hyundai Tucson, 721.5 Points
(See the scorecard, the Monroney sticker or research the 2012 Hyundai Tucson)

What they liked: Clearly, all of the judges enjoyed how much they got for 25 grand. "Great value," Geiger said. "At this price point, we were able to get some pretty nice features: heated leather seats, a power driver's seat, hill descent control and satellite radio." "The price starts under 20 grand, and by the time you get to 25, you've got a ton of features for not a lot of price," Robinson added. "Amazingly well-dressed for the price," Meier noted. "It delivers on Hyundai's reputation for value for your bucks."

Using those features was a little easier for Thomas in the Tucson: "Give me the Tucson's straightforward tech over the Mazda's touch-screen any day. Scrolling through iPod playlists, synching your phone and making calls was intuitive and natural."
Of course, part of the equation is the driving. "The Tucson springs away from stoplights and has decent passing power," Jackson said. "Handling was top-notch in the Tucson," Thomas said. "It was one of the few crossovers that I could take at full speed through tight turns. For the family, with its 11-year-old SUV, the SUVs in this Shootout were revelations, and the Tucson was no exception.
"This one and the Mazda never would have made it" onto their shopping list. "This really feels beautiful," Nick said. "I'm really surprised by this car," Erin added. The heated leather seats were something "we didn't think we could get at this price," Erin said.

What they didn't: Where the family saw beauty in the Tucson's design, Robinson saw "ugly exterior styling." Many of the experts' complaints revolved around a slew of issues.

"Some of the controls feel cheep and light," Jackson said. "Road noise and tire roar in the Tucson are hard to ignore, making it one of the loudest SUVs in the class," Geiger said. "There's no hiding the fact the cargo area is small," Thomas said, a view that Robinson shared. Thomas continued: "It's too small for my family dog — let alone what we pack for a road trip — and it has a really high load-in height." For Meier, the "lack of visibility at the rear corners makes you see the value of backup and blind spot warning systems."

The verdict:
"The Tucson remains an excellent option in the class," Thomas notes, "but the class has gotten much tougher very quickly."

Key Features
  • EPA-estimated 22/32 mpg city/highway; we observed 27.6 mpg.
  • Heated leather seats (only vehicle tested with feature)
  • Most-expensive vehicle of the Shootout
  • 55.8 cubic feet of maximum cargo space; 25.7 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seats (the smallest cargo area behind the second row amongst the competitors)
  • Roof rack
  • Five-year/60,000-mile new vehicle warranty, 10-year/100,000-mile powertrain warranty (tied with Kia for the longest warranty)
  • Power driver's seat
  • Satellite radio
  • IIHS Top Safety Pick for 2012
2012 Hyundai Tucson Payment Facts
MSRP with destination fee: $25,820
Monthly payment: $531.10*
Difference from cheapest car: $51.94 a month

Find a 2012 Hyundai Tucson near you
No. 4 2012 Chevrolet Equinox, 740 Points
(See the scorecard, the Monroney sticker or research the 2012 Chevrolet Equinox)

What they liked:
"Being the biggest one in the group, obviously there's lots of cargo space, but even more importantly, there's lots of small-item storage up front as well," Robinson noted. "The interior has an 'almost-premium' feel."

Jackson, a triathlete, picked up on that the Equinox "was the only SUV where I felt I could take a road trip in the second row thanks to the sliding rear seats.There's a huge second row and a large cargo area, too; most SUVs in this class make you choose one or the other." Meier called that sliding second row a "why can't do they do it all?" feature.
For Geiger, the Latch anchors were a winning point for the Equinox. "They rank among the best I've ever used. They're completely exposed and have lots of clearance around them — hooking up a child-safety seat is a breeze."

What they didn't: The driving experience lagged its competitors. "This powertrain needs to go to finishing school," Geiger said. "It's slow, loud and the transmission's shifts are clunky and oddly timed." Robinson concurred: "The engine, while adequate in power, has a very rough feel to it." The family had a hard time with the concept of an Eco button. "When would you use that?" they asked. The idea that the transmission adjusted electronically for better fuel economy didn't impress them.

It wasn't all about the engine, though. "On the highway the Chevy was definitely the loudest of the six with lots of road noise," Thomas said. "The seats did not provide enough support, especially for my thighs," Jackson found. And the stereo sent Meier off on a mini-rant. "The Equinox had an unexpectedly good audio with subwoofer at this price — and then there's no USB port for your iPod! Chevy should fire the bean counter whose cost-cutting will turn off those younger buyers you could have wooed with the good sound," he said. "Worse, putting a white plate in the black console reminds you where the USB would have been if you'd just paid more."

The verdict: "The Equinox is bigger than the rest of these SUVs, so it's very roomy inside, and it has one of the best rides of the group," Robinson said. "It's a great overall package that could just use a little more refinement in the powertrain."

Key Features
  • EPA-estimated 22/32 mpg city/highway; we observed 27.1 mpg combined (the lowest mpg tested)
  • 63.7 cubic feet of maximum cargo space; 31.5 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seats
  • IIHS Top Safety Pick for 2012
  • Power height adjustment for driver's seat
  • Sliding, reclining second-row seat
2012 Chevy Equinox Payment Facts
MSRP with destination fee: $24,355
Monthly payment: $500.97*
Difference from cheapest car: $21.81 a month

Find a 2012 Chevrolet Equinox near you
No. 3 2012 Kia Sportage, 774 Points
(See the scorecard, the Monroney sticker or research the 2012 Kia Sportage)

What they liked: "Getting a full navigation system with an upgraded stereo at a price in the middle of our range was a huge win for Kia," Thomas said. "Plus, the stereo sounded better than the rest, too."

Erin also liked the nav system: "It feels really high-end." That wasn't the only advantage. "The Sportage definitely has an attitude," Geiger said. "Its exterior styling breaks the compact-SUV mold; it's the edgiest-looking one of the bunch.  It also gets some brownie points in the storage department. A deep center console, coupled with under-floor storage with separate bins in the cargo area, mean there are plenty of places to stash stuff."
"The Sportage has the crisp handling of the mechanically similar Hyundai Tucson," Meier said, "but its good ride and quiet interior are amazingly better than its stablemate." Jackson also liked its "immediate engine response," and the family raved about its spaciousness. "It's really roomy," Nick said after feeling cramped in the Tucson.

What they didn't: While some experts liked the aggressive styling, "that stylish high belt line may make shorter folks claustrophobic," Meier said, "and they sure won't be resting an elbow on the window sill." He also pointed out that the rakish roof leads to "very limited rear sightlines, and that means you'll need that backup camera and you'll wish for a blind spot alert system."

For Robinson, "the interior quality doesn't seem on par with most recent Kias." "Like the Tucson, the cargo area is too small with a very high load floor," Thomas said. 
And that nav system that everyone raved about? "You've got a great nav system and you install it at an angle leaning backward toward the windshield? That leads to a lot of glare, and when it's sunny out, it is very hard to read the screen," Thomas said.

The verdict: "The sticker price and features wowed me, the family and likely other shoppers. If cargo space isn't a concern, the Sportage will be hard to ignore, Thomas said.

Key Features
  • EPA-estimated 22/32 mpg city/highway; we observed 28.5 mpg combined
  • Navigation system (only one equipped as-tested)
  • 54.6 cubic feet of maximum cargo space; 26.1 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seats (least amount of maximum cargo space in Shootout)
  • Heated side mirrors
  • Cooling glove box (Only vehicle tested with feature)
  • Backup camera
  • 5-year/60,000-mile new vehicle warranty, 10-year/100,000-mile powertrain warranty (tied with Hyundai for longest warranty)
  • Satellite radio
  • IIHS Top Safety Pick for 2012
2012 Kia Sportage Payment Facts
MSRP with destination fee: $24,575
Monthly payment: $505.49*
Difference from cheapest car: $26.33 a month

Find a 2012 Kia Sportage near you
No. 2 2013 Mazda CX-5, 784 Points
(See the scorecard, the Monroney sticker or research the 2013 Mazda CX-5)

What they liked: The CX-5 is the first Mazda to shed the “big grin” design language the automaker has been using for the last five years.
“More than one person has described the CX-5 as ‘cute,’ ” Jackson said, even though this is the first Mazda to shed the “big grin” design language the automaker had been using for the last five years. “The interior has the richest look of any in our test,” he continued. “I kept thinking that we had to be in a model that didn’t meet our price level; it looked so nice.” But meet our price limit it did, a feat that Geiger also praised. “Low base prices and high fuel economy mean this car should appeal to penny-pinchers, and lots of features for the price (blind spot warning, backup camera and powerdriver seat) mean they’re getting a good value,” she said.

“I really like it,” Erin said about the interior. “It’s really streamlined but in a good way,” she said. Meier praised the “airy, spacious feel inside with classy trim and seat cloth and the straightforward gauges and controls,” he said. “You expect classy interiors from Mazda and CX-5 doesn't disappoint.”

Beyond that, Geiger favored the second row. “The backseat folds in a 40/20/40 split, which is useful for hauling different combinations of people and cargo. The seats also fold flat with ease, thanks to three cargo-area handles.” One of the reasons the CX-5 scored so high was its outstanding fuel economy. It was more than 2 mpg ahead of its closest competitor.

What they didn't: Part of that great fuel economy was because of, shall we say, reserved acceleration. Looking at the judges' scores, this category likely kept it from the top spot. "The CX-5's 2.0-liter engine has adequate pep from a stop, but it's on the loud side and takes awhile to gather steam," Geiger noted. "That famed Zoom-Zoom wasn't there in the handling department," Thomas said. "While it topped the CR-V and Equinox in that regard, the Escape, Tucson and Sportage all out-cornered it." Worse, Meier said: "The engine's thin power undercuts confidence in demanding situations."

The CX-5's new stereo setup also raised ire. "The info screen looks outdated, and there's a navigation button even though there's no [factory installed] nav," Robinson said.
Compared to the others in the Shootout, the CX-5's Latch anchors weren't super accessible. There wasn't a lot of clearance around the anchors, so the car seat's Latch connector has to be jammed in for it to hook on.
One big point of contention: the clock. The family and a couple of judges could not understand why the clock was placed where it was, and while they all liked the look and layout of the dashboard, they thought the air-conditioning controls and the clock felt as if they were out of a different time period than the rest of the car. "It looks basic, basic, basic," Erin said. She also thought the center armrest was "unusably too low; actually, it's too far back and too low." Husband Nick was not as wowed as the expert judges. "I hate it. I don't know why!"

The verdict: "Mazda really needs the CX-5 to be a winner, and it's poised to be," Geiger said. "The CX-5 should appeal to a wide audience with eye-catching styling, a quality interior, plenty of convenience features and excellent-for-the-class fuel economy."

Key Features
  • EPA-estimated 26/32 mpg city/highway; we observed 32.8 mpg combined (highest mpg tested)
  • 65.4 cubic feet of maximum cargo space; 34.1 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seats
  • Power driver's seat 
  • 5.8-inch color LCD display with backup camera
  • HD Radio and satellite radio
  • Blind spot warning system (only vehicle tested with feature)
  • IIHS Top Safety Pick for 2012
2013 Mazda CX-5 Payment Facts
MSRP with destination fee: $24,690
Monthly payment: $507.86*
Difference from cheapest car: $28.70 a month

Find a 2013 Mazda CX-5 near you
And the winner is...

No. 1 2012 Honda CR-V, 809 Points
(See the scorecard, the Monroney sticker or research the 2012 Honda CR-V)

What they liked: Perhaps the greatest compliment to be paid to our winner is that everything that came in our tester was standard for the trim level, and the combination of those features really pleased our judges.

"Even just equipped with the standard tech features, the CR-V shined," Thomas said. "The Bluetooth and USB integration works well with a vibrant color display that's easy to read, and the stereo was one of my favorites." "The CR-V is loaded with convenience features that come standard," Geiger said. "Three of my favorites are the always-helpful backup camera, the cavernous center console box and the easy fold-flat seats with cargo-area release handles. Bonus: This was the only vehicle with a sunroof at this price point." Robinson loved the "great ergonomics and the CR-V's best interior layout."
Perhaps betraying that they haven't been in the market since 2001, Erin and Nick were "totally amazed" by the conversation mirror (most commonly found in minivans) that lets parents check up on kids in the second row. "Mason, look! Mom can see you!" But that wasn't the only thing they liked about the Honda.
They had barely begun their test drive when Erin exclaimed, "It drives like a dream." She also liked the CR-V's size: "This just feels like a car, and the Chevy feels big," she said, with "big" referring to a larger SUV.

What they didn't: The CR-V is one of the totally redesigned SUVs in this contest, but not everyone thought the Honda had improved on its looks. "The rear styling is pretty bad," Jackson said. "It's got the biggest butt of any of the SUVs here. Actually, the front styling ain't so hot, either."

But it's not all about looks. "Handling is where the CR-V showed some chinks in the armor," Thomas said. "When taking corners, driver and passengers leaned more in the Honda than the other contenders." Geiger also had some issues with the driving. "Eco mode is a double-edged sword: I appreciate the potential fuel savings, but the system alters the throttle response and delays shifts points so the CR-V seems lazy," she said.
While many praised the features included in the price tag, Robinson said the CR-V "still trails many others in technological and convenience features such as blind spot monitoring systems, push-button start, etc." Finally, Thomas was bugged by one little annoyance: "Considering how many great cubbies there are around the cabin, I would really like a better place to put my smartphone."

The verdict: "The Honda CR-V is one of the most well-rounded vehicles in this segment. It's a comfortable cruiser with a solid powertrain, a compliant ride and plenty of features," Geiger said. "The brand's history of strong reliability helps tip the scale."

Key Features
  • EPA-estimated 23/31 mpg city/highway; we observed 30.3 mpg combined (the second best mpg tested)
  • 70.9 cubic feet of maximum cargo space; 37.2 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seats (largest cargo area in competition)
  • Second-most expensive vehicle of the comparison test
  • Sunroof (only vehicle tested with feature)
  • Backup camera
  • Pandora Internet radio (only vehicle tested with feature)
  • IIHS Top Safety Pick for 2012
2012 Honda CR-V Payment Facts
MSRP with destination fee: $25,425
Monthly payment: $522.98*
Difference from cheapest car: $43.82 a month

Find a 2012 Honda CR-V near you

*Monthly payment assumes good credit, no money down, 60-month loan, 5% interest and 9% sales tax.

Source;
http://www.cars.com/go/crp/buyingGuides/Story.jsp?referer=&year=New&section=SUV&story=25ksuvShootoutresult&subject=stories

Autos.ca: Comparison Test: Five compact CUVs


Review by Michael Schlee and Jonathan Yarkony; photos by Brigitte, Esmond Yau, and Jonathan Yarkony
Photo Gallery:Compact CUV comparo
Crossovers are pretty much old hat by now. Almost every manufacturer has abandoned the truck-based body-on-frame sport utility vehicle (SUV) for more advanced unibody construction, which is enough in most books to warrant slapping on the crossover utility vehicle (CUV) label. While the differences are marginal, CUVs offer the high seating position and roomy cargo area of SUVs with a more refined, car-like ride. Some even make all-wheel drive an option rather than a key standard feature. While every segment has seen the introduction of CUVs (from subcompact all the way up to full-size), compact CUVs are the second largest segment by sales (after compact cars), eclipsing even sales of large pickup trucks.
Most manufacturers are in on the segment now, but Toyota and Honda have defined it since they introduced the RAV4 and CR-V, respectively, in the mid-90s. With each generation they have gone head-to-head, leading the segment to prominence as an economical and conscientious option to large SUVs without giving up the creature comforts and utility of those practical transports.
The Honda CR-V was the eighth-bestselling light truck nameplate in Canada last year at just over 25,000, and that was in its final model year, before the introduction of this brand-new 2012 model. With this redesign, Honda again aims to raise the bar and we wanted to see if it still has the Honda mojo that sees the Civic dominate Canadian sales year after year, and the engineering that makes the subcompact Fit the darling of media, though perhaps too pricey for popular tastes.
The Toyota RAV4 is due for its own redesign very shortly, having been on the market in its current form since 2006 with only minor revisions in 2008 and a face-lift in 2011. Despite its age, Toyota sold over 21,000 RAV4s in Canada last year, thanks to variety not offered on many other CUVs, with its optional seating for seven and an optional V6 engine.
Of course, the Ford Escape is the Canadian sales champ (by almost 20K units over the CR-V), but the brand new redesigned 2013 Escape is not yet available, so we went looking elsewhere in the talent pool to see who might challenge two of the most recognized household names in the industry. We started with the Nissan Rogue, Nissan’s bestselling model after the Versa line and bestselling utility vehicle by a huge margin, accounting for 14,191 sales for Nissan in 2011. Hyundai sold a similar number of Tucsons in 2011 at 14,309, but no matter how many were sold, we would have included the Tucson, because pretty much everything Hyundai touches is gold these days; we believed the fairly fresh Tucson would be one of the strongest contenders, coming off a significant redesign only a couple years ago.
And last but not least, a brand new model from Mazda, the CX-5, using the firm’s engineering magic that gives us the brilliant MX-5, Mazda3, and Mazda5. Significantly, the CX-5 is the first Mazda to wholly incorporate its new SkyActiv technologies in every facet of vehicle design – from powertrain and chassis right down to suspension and steering – aimed at improving fuel efficiency without compromising driving fun. We had high expectations for the CX-5, because it is a new design that Mazda has had years to contemplate (while selling a rebadged Ford Escape as the Tribute), and because of Mazda’s track record for making fun, functional, and well-packaged vehicles. However, the reason we do these comparison tests is to see who comes out ahead on the road, and not simply in our preconceptions.

Fifth Place – 2012 Nissan Rogue SL AWD

Something had to finish last, and in the case of this comparison test it was the Nissan Rogue. While it finished at the back of the pack in this company, that doesn’t mean that it is not a good car in its own right, as all five CUVs were strong entrants. That being said, it simply wasn’t quite as good as the others in this group. The more we drove these compact crossovers, the more we realized each had its endearing qualities and its sore spots. Unfortunately for the Rogue, its negatives exceeded the other CUVs’ flaws. So what hurt the Rogue the most? In short, it was let down most by its interior and drivetrain.
The interior of the Rogue is a bit of a conundrum. Our fully loaded SL was awash with rich-looking soft-touch materials that were only matched in the CX-5. The overall design of the interior was conservative, to a fault. Despite the great materials, the design looks dated, which makes sense considering this is the second oldest model design in the comparison test. For every great feature like around view monitor parking cameras and standard navigation, there were basic options missing, like a telescopic steering wheel and fold-down rear-seat armrest.
The front seats received much praise for their comfort, but the low placement of the tiny radio/navigation/backup camera screen made viewing it a chore. Another chore was installing a child safety seat: with solid fixed head restraints, the over-the-seat strap had to be finagled to go around the restraint and the cargo-bay LATCH anchor was covered by an unfriendly piece of plastic. Rear cargo space was useful, but at 818 litres was the second smallest, beating only the diminutive Hyundai Tucson.
Off the line, the Rogue is a solid performer thanks to its 170-hp, 2.5-litre four-cylinder engine. The problem is, to extract the full potential out of the Rogue’s engine you must dip heavily into the throttle and allow the continuously variable transmission (CVT) to hold the engine in a high-rpm thrashing cacophony. The CVT in the Rogue is nowhere close to being the worst on the market (that “honour” goes to the Compass), but it is still a CVT and many did not like it. As the only vehicle in the test with a supposedly fuel-saving CVT, it was a bit surprising that it returned the second-worst fuel consumption at an average of 11.8 L/100 km.
It is really too bad that the drivetrain and interior nuances of the Rogue weighed it down so much, since its chassis, exterior styling and rear seat comfort all scored well with the judges and placed it respectably mid-pack in those categories.

Fourth Place – 2012 Toyota RAV4 4WD V6 Limited

Many of us were expecting bigger things from the RAV4. It was the only crossover powered by a six-cylinder engine (making in excess of 100 extra horsepower over the CX-5) and, with the highest as-tested price, was one of the most generously equipped. However, when the dust settled, the RAV4 finished at the back of the pack just ahead the Nissan Rogue. It is easy to automatically point at high price and poor fuel economy as the culprits that brought this rig down in the rankings, but in reality, it was a mediocre interior, bland exterior and poor chassis that were the RAV4’s ultimate undoing.
Most of us love the RAV4’s V6 power, grunt and character. The smoothness of the engine was matched by the smoothness of the ride. Even with an extra litre over the next largest engine, the 269-hp 3.5-litre V6 returned a decent 13.0 L/100 km fuel consumption average. That’s nowhere near the frugal CX-5′s average, but it is within 1.3 L/100 km achieved by the smaller, less powerful engines found in the Tucson and Rogue.
Transmission kick-downs are lazy, steering feel is numb, and cornering ability was deemed worst of the bunch. Understandably, these crossovers are not sports cars, but the RAV4 is so disengaging to drive that the task almost becomes a chore. It is an unfortunate case of the chassis being overmatched by the engine.
The interior feels dated, yet it is useful and well laid out. Materials are predominantly a variety of hard and harder plastics and the front seats were deemed the least comfortable. Rear seat space is generous and offers great legroom, but the seat cushions were too short and placed too low in the vehicle for our expert seat-testing team. The RAV4 ties the CR-V for the largest cargo area (just over 1,000 L) but has a trump card up its sleeve: a pair of storage areas beneath the trunk’s carpeted floor panels, thanks to the missing optional third-row seat and tailgate-mounted spare tire.
When the RAV4 first appeared as a 2006 model it was at the top of its game and a phenomenal compact crossover. However, time marches on and the seven-year-old RAV4 has not. As one of our testers commented, “(The RAV4) looks, feels and handles like the senior citizen of the group.” That said, if hauling a lot of stuff or a lot of people a lot of the time sounds like you, the RAV4’s seven-seat capacity and V6 options might be its trump cards.

Third Place – 2012 Hyundai Tucson GLS AWD

“This is the sports car of the bunch,” boldly declared one tester after a turn behind the wheel of the Tucson. Fact is, it’s not that far from the truth. Phrases like ‘fun to drive’, ‘nimble handler’ and ‘makes the RAV4 feel like an old Buick’ were heard as different evaluators stepped out after their turn with the Tucson. Being the only vehicle in this test, aside from the CR-V, on all-season tires, helped amplify the Tucson’s handling prowess. As can be expected though, this ability to carve a corner has a payoff in the form of a stiff ride. Some were okay with it, while others found it too harsh. Hyundai has yet to find that magic handling with supple ride formula in this segment that makes the Honda CR-V such a joy to drive.
The Tucson tied the RAV4 for the least comfortable front seats and a few of us found excessive wind noise intruding into the cabin. Steering was stiff and crisp if not a bit artificially heavy. The gauge cluster and HVAC drew the most criticism out of the test group but were simple to operate. Despite being the smallest vehicle in the test group, rear seat room was average and impressed us with some of the most comfortable seatbacks even if the cushions felt too low to the floor.
Cargo space, at 728 L, is the smallest in the bunch, which is to be expected considering the Tucson was the smallest in the group. Strangely enough, the smaller Tucson is heavier than both the Rogue and the CX-5, which may explain its unimpressive 11.7 L/100 km fuel consumption observed during the test.
The Tucson did arrive with the lowest as-tested price. At this price point, some options were lacking, notably a sunroof and back-up camera, but all the important convenience features were present and accounted for and some nice touches, like big side mirrors, were much appreciated. Many also appreciated the Tucson’s smooth six-speed automatic and 176-hp, 2.4-litre four-cylinder engine.
When the scores were added up and people were asked their opinion on each vehicle, “good value” kept coming up when the Tucson was discussed. That is a phrase that often comes up when any Hyundai product is discussed, and it is well-deserved. The Tucson, like most Hyundai products, delivers solid value, though it still has a ways to go to catch up with our winner.

2nd Place – 2013 Mazda CX-5 GS AWD

Mazda finally has a small crossover to call its own. The all-new 2013 CX-5 replaces the long-in-the-tooth Ford Escape-based Tribute. It is the first vehicle sold in North America to fully incorporate Mazda’s SkyActiv technology, and it also reflects its new Kodo design language with attractive, thoroughly modern sheet metal. The CX-5 was the looker of the bunch and achieved the highest average rating in any category, with a 9.8 for exterior styling. One of us even went as far as to say, “It has a ‘very BMW’ look and feel inside and out.” Inside, it is much the same story with rich, soft touch materials molded into a sophisticated design packed with features not expected on a mid-level trim.
But styling is not Mazda’s primary focus with this new crossover. Fuel economy is the name of the game. Mazda introduced certain components of its SkyActiv technology in the Mazda3 earlier this year, to lukewarm reception. With the CX-5, it was applied from the ground up. The CX-5 was the third-largest vehicle in this test and featured mid-pack cargo capacity at 966 litres behind the rear seats. Despite its size, it was still the lightest of the bunch, undercutting the smaller Rogue and Tucson. It also had the smallest engine making the least output: a 2.0-litre 4-cylinder producing 155 hp with a six-speed automatic transmission programmed with fuel economy in mind.
So did it work? Yes. SkyActiv is not marketing hype (well it is that, too, so not JUST marketing hype). The CX-5 achieved an impressive 9.6 L/100 km on a test loop that featured hilly terrain and a lot of flogging from our test crew, especially by the stragglers at the back. To put it in context, the next-closest vehicle was the Honda CR-V at 10.9 L/100 km. Beyond this test route, the CX-5 achieved a day-to-day average of 8.9 L/100 km. Not bad for a 1,555-kg all-wheel-drive crossover; to further impress you, the 1,350-kg 2012 Subaru Impreza with a CVT that we drove a few weeks ago achieved 10.0 L/100 km
With the light weight and sporty disposition, we expected the CX-5 to be a great handler. Here, we were sorely disappointed. Some blamed it on the GS trim’s 17-inch wheels and soft winter tires, but the CX-5 did not have the composed feel of the Tucson or CR-V. The vehicle would push into corners and the lazy transmission and weak engine combination made exiting turns with any haste impossible. We would love to get our hands on a GT version with the 19-inch rims and all-season tires later this spring to see if this would help remedy the problem. That said, the chassis was solid and provided a smooth, compliant ride.
Coming into this comparison test, everyone had high expectations for the brand new Mazda CX-5. With its benchmark fuel economy numbers and handsome styling, many thought we had a winner on our hands. So, what happened? Well, the CR-V happened. The CX-5 is a terrific crossover, and when the five evaluators were asked which vehicle they would put their own money on, three said the CX-5, with two of the main reasons being its gorgeous looks and tremendous fuel economy.

First Place – 2012 Honda CR-V Touring AWD

Anyone who thinks Honda can no longer build class-leading vehicles needs to get behind the wheel of the 2012 CR-V. All new for 2012, Honda has stepped up its game with the redesigned CR-V and has let some Acura qualities bleed through. Nearly every tester commented on how comfortable the front seats were. The gauge cluster would look at home in a luxury Q-ship and the dash design was elegant and well laid out. Despite the hard plastics, the CR-V’s fit and finish made them look far more expensive than they really were.
Welcome interior features on a vehicle in this class included a massive centre-armrest storage bin that looks big enough to fit a CR-Z in. The rear seats were deemed the most comfortable for three people and tied for first in comfort with two people. The multiple menu screens on the dashboard were customizable and allowed the driver to tailor what information they want readily available, though some complained of the quality of the screens.
Once behind the wheel, the CR-V was voted the easiest to drive. Every reviewer commented that this Honda was the vehicle they felt most comfortable driving, and when driving quickly to boot. The vehicle responds predictably in corners and despite some body roll, is easy to control. The nearly perfect ride balance between comfort and sport is unexpected in this class of vehicle and the steering wheel sends a surprising amount of feedback to the driver.
With 1,054 litres of cargo space behind the rear seats and a curb weight of 1,608 kg, the CR-V was one of the larger vehicles in this class. However, it still achieved the second-best observed fuel economy at 10.9 L/100 km. Impressive, considering the 2.4-litre four-cylinder engine makes the second-most power in this group, at 185 hp. Step on the gas from a dead stop and the Honda pulls away with surprising vigour, though power begins to taper off at highway speeds.
The CR-V is not perfect, though. Many found the new redesign to be a bit ungainly, garnering particular derision for the pinched rear side window. In what could be considered the most unfavourable comparison, more than one tester referred to this window as “Pontiac Aztek-like.” Our shortest reviewer also discovered that the front seats were a bit higher off the ground than the others, making entry into the CR-V a bit more of a challenge.
Still, the CR-V winning overall was a unanimous decision, as all five of us had it scored the highest. With a slight design refresh around the rear C-pillar, and maybe a bit more torque, the compact crossover CR-V would be darn near perfect.


Source;

Cars.com™ Names the 2012 Honda Pilot the Best $37,000 SUV

CHICAGO, Oct. 17, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Cars.com, the nation's premier online resource for new and used car buyers announced today that the 2012 Honda Pilot is the winner of its $37,000 SUV Shootout in conjunction with USA Today and MotorWeek. The shootout pitted seven three-row SUV's and crossovers configured with family-friendly features—all under $37,000—against each other in a series of tests.

"The Honda Pilot won for its great mixture of comfort, roominess, features and efficiency," said Patrick Olsen, Cars.com editor-in-chief. "It is the perfect SUV for buyers who want to comfortably haul the entire family and all of their gear.

The seven SUV's were tested over three days in order to measure all of the needs of family SUV buyers including gas mileage, storage, features and comfort. The testing included:
230-miles of highway driving to determine each SUV's accurate gas mileage.
Driving of each car by each expert to measure each vehicle for features, ride quality, styling and comfort.

A day of family testing and driving where a family of four joined our experts to give their impressions of the family-friendliness of the vehicle. They inspected every vehicle and its features and took the vehicles on a test drive.

"Interest in large SUV's took a hit during the gas-price spike in 2008," said Olsen. "However, the reality is that if a family doesn't want a minivan, these vehicles are really the only other option. Manufacturers have realized this and now 3-row SUVs are more competitively price, and more fuel efficient than ever before."

Other vehicles competing for the title included the Chevrolet Traverse, Dodge Durango, Ford Explorer, Kia Sorento, Mazda CX-9 and Toyota Highlander.

For further details and results on this shootout, visit www.cars.com.

ABOUT CARS.COM
Cars.com was recently named the "Best Overall Customer Experience" by Keynote Systems, the leader in internet and mobile cloud monitoring. Cars.com is an online destination for car shoppers that offers information from consumers and experts to help buyers formulate opinions on what to buy, where to buy and how much to pay for a car. With price listings, side-by-side comparison tools, photo galleries, videos, unbiased editorial content and a large selection of new- and used-car inventory, Cars.com puts millions of car buyers in control of their shopping process with the information they need to make confident buying decisions.

Launched in June 1998, Cars.com is a division of Classified Ventures, LLC, which is owned by leading media companies, including Belo (NYSE: BLC), Gannett Co., Inc. (NYSE: GCI), The McClatchy Company (NYSE: MNI), Tribune Company and The Washington Post Company (NYSE: WPO).

Source;
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/carscom-names-the-2012-honda-pilot-the-best-37000-suv-131972108.html

For the Full Write up;
http://www.cars.com/go/crp/buyingGuides/Story.jsp?referer=&year=New&year=New&section=SUV&story=37ksuvOverview&su

Honda CR-V Wins Vehix Small SUV Comparison Test

Really in depth comparison test, great read, I just put the basic's from the article, make sure you you read the full article....

1ST Place: 2011 Honda CR-V
Overall Score: 7.3 out of 10
Likes
-Comfortable seats
-Simple yet innovative interior packaging
-Lively driving character in urban environments
-Top quality and dependability ratings
-Holds its value over time
Dislikes
-Limited availability of technology features
-Accessing engine power means revving the engine
-Transmission regularly exercises its hunting permit
-Choppy highway ride
-We’re thinking, we’re thinking…
The Vehix View
Honda appeals more to the head than the heart with the 2011 CR-V, an utterly practical, extremely comfortable, exceptionally reliable, and genuinely fun-to-drive crossover SUV.

2nd Place: 2011 Chevrolet Equinox
Overall Score: 7.2 out of 10
Likes
-Styling
-Comfort
-Ride and handling
-Safety features and crash-test scores
-Impressive warranty coverage
Dislikes
-Fuel economy
-Powertrain refinement
-Confusing controls
-Visibility
-Narrow cargo area
The Vehix View
Thanks to a solid middle-of-the-road performance, the 2011 Chevrolet Equinox slips into 2nd place in our comparison test. All it really needs is a more fuel-efficient and refined engine, minor reconfiguration of the interior, and better quality scores to lead the pack.

3rd Place: 2011 Toyota RAV4
Overall Score: 7.1 out of 10
Likes
-Impeccable build quality
-Lots of fun to drive
-Simple controls and displays
-Roomy cargo area
-Impressive gas mileage
Dislikes
-Few frills, premium price
-Cheap interior materials
-Seat comfort, front and rear
-NHTSA crash-test results
-Silly cargo door with spare tire stuck to it
The Vehix View
The fun-to-drive Toyota RAV4 is due for a redesign, and we hope the next version features improved interior materials, better crash-test scores, and more comfortable seats. Toyota can ditch that rear cargo door, too.

4th Place: 2011 Hyundai Tucson
Overall Score: 6.8 out of 10
Likes
-Interior design, materials and layout
-Lots of technology for the price
-Engine, transmission, and fuel economy
-Killer warranty and assurance programs
-IIHS Top Safety Pick
Dislikes
-Front styling
-Rear-seat comfort
-Rear visibility
-Steering feel
-Ride quality
The Vehix View
With improvements in rear-seat comfort, steering, ride quality, and independent ratings for quality, reliability, and expected depreciation, the Tucson would dominate the competition.
Drawing Conclusions
It may sound trite to admit, but based on our four-vehicle comparison test, there’s no clear winner or loser among this group. Each of the CUVs we drove gives the consumer a compelling reason to purchase, and each one possesses a potential flaw that a consumer might find impossible to live with. Despite this, we’ve driven the miles, crunched the data, and determined which of these four is the best of the bunch.

The Hyundai Tucson (view photos) smells like a bargain, thanks to impressive features, a competitive sticker price, and an industry-leading warranty. Add a high-quality interior, a Top Safety Pick crash-test award, and a best-in-test real world fuel economy number, and we understand why it’s hard to fathom its fourth-place finish. The trouble with the Tucson is that it is a chore to drive. The steering requires constant correction and maintenance, the ride is busy and bouncy, and visibility to the rear is poor. Plus, rear seat occupants – especially those old enough to talk but not tall enough to see past the Tucson’s towering door panels – are likely to squawk about claustrophobia.

The Toyota RAV4 (view photos) is a popular choice because it is roomy and simple, delivering impressive gas mileage and build quality for a low price. But that low price is deceiving, because you’re not getting many frills, and the Toyota’s interior looks and feels the cheapest of the group. Seat comfort is merely adequate, the cargo door is unwieldy, and the NHTSA’s new battery of crash tests reveals potentially inadequate passenger protection in some types of accidents. Negatives aside, perhaps the most surprising thing about the RAV4 is that it is fun to drive. Most people think Toyotas are nothing more than sleeping aids on wheels. When it comes to this CUV, that’s definitely not the case.

The Chevy Equinox (view photos) offers a compelling blend of emotional and practical reasons for purchase, from its good looks and comfortable interior to its impressive warranty coverage and favorable crash-test scores. However, based on our driving we think the EPA’s fuel economy estimates for the unrefined four-cylinder powertrain are out of line with reality. Plus, it’s hard to see out of the Equinox, the controls are often a source of confusion, and the cargo space is almost too narrow to accommodate a full-size stroller. While there is certainly room for improvement, the Equinox is definitely worth investigation.

The Honda CR-V (view photos) is the small crossover that we would recommend to friends and family, because it makes life easier. Brimming with practicality, the lively little CR-V is deceptively roomy inside with very comfortable seats, innovative cargo and storage solutions, and simple controls. Add top quality and dependability ratings and the ability to hold its value over time, and the Honda CR-V makes a clear case for purchase. All Honda really needs to do is make Bluetooth standard across the board, and we can forgive the CR-V’s relatively minor flaws.

Source;
http://www.vehix.com/articles/reviews/small-suv-comparison-test/1

Cars.com: $29,000 SUV Shootout: The Results

Here's an interesting review, done by a interesting choice of reviewers, didn't know that Joey Lawrence was a car guy (mind you, I do seem to remember him being a mechanic on his show). I find it frustrating that one of the biggest cons against the CRV is style, which in my opinion is one of the most subjective things when reviewing a vehicle.... can't wait for the 2012, although I have no problems with the 2011.
Which SUVs?
How did we pick these SUVs? In many cases, we let the automakers pick them. We talked to J.D. Power & Associates to see which SUVs consumers cross-shopped with the Chevrolet Equinox and the Hyundai Santa Fe. They came back with this list: Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4, Ford Escape, Kia Sorento, GMC Terrain and Dodge Journey. We looked at sales popularity and found all eight had sold at least 17,000 through April 2010. A couple of others — Subaru Forester and Nissan Rogue — merited inclusion because of their sales popularity, and a handful didn't make the cut due to a lack of sales. We allowed only one SUV per automaker, so GM had to pick either an Equinox or a Terrain.That left us with a set of compact/midsize crossovers scattered across a wide price spectrum. We returned to J.D. Power to investigate the group's median transaction price. J.D. Power reported a $6,500 spread, from $25,361 for compact crossovers to $31,844 for midsize crossovers. Splitting the difference gave us $28,603, which we rounded up to $29,000. What do you get for $29,000 on these SUVs? This is what they come with.
The Rules
Then we set the rules for automakers: We wanted an SUV or a compact or midsize crossover that fit under $29,000. Automakers had to provide a Monroney sticker to prove each car came in under that price (excluding destination charges). It needed to have an automatic transmission. We also gave them specifics about our target family: It would be a family of four who would use this SUV as their primary vehicle. The family would be based in Southern California, meaning they would spend a fair amount of time in traffic together, and that might also explain why most automakers did not give us a car with all-wheel drive.The automakers made different — and interesting — choices. Rather than going with their midsize Santa Fe and Sorento, Hyundai and Kia (respectively) elected to give us well-equipped versions of their smaller Tucson and Sportage. Similarly, Ford and Nissan opted against a stripped-down Edge and Murano (respectively), going instead with a well-equipped Escape and Rogue. Chrysler, it turned out, was the only automaker that stuck with a truly midsize entrant.

The Testing
We put the SUVs through a number of tests, including a full day of testing by the experts, a full day's examination by our test family guided by our team of experts, and a full day's mileage drive. The tests were conducted in early December in Southern California around the Pasadena area.

The Scoring
Judging the SUVS were:
Kristin Varela, chief mom for Cars.com and editor of MotherProof.com
David Thomas, senior editor for Cars.com
Jennifer Newman, editor for Cars.com and MotherProof.com
Chris Woodyard, reporter and editor for USA Today
Brian Robinson, producer for "MotorWeek," the longtime public television automotive show
Joey and Chandie Lawrence. Joey is the star of "Melissa and Joey" on the ABC Family network. They are the parents of two young girls.

The experts' opinions make up 65 percent of the score; the Lawrence family, 25 percent. Fuel economy makes up the final 10 percent of the final score.See what our experts and family found, and let us know what you think as well.

Car & Driver Magazine Comparo; 09 Chevrolet Traverse LT, 08 Hyundai Veracruz, 08 Mazda CX-9, 08 Toyota Highlander, 09 Ford Flex, and 09 Honda Pilot


We compare six family haulers and, amazingly, drown none of them.
BY JOHN PHILLIPS, PHOTOGRAPHY BY AARON KILEY November 2008

When we last visited Michigan’s Drummond Island [“Mud Puppies,” February 2008], we compared nine Lilliput SUVs and quickly found ourselves in over our heads. Which is to say, we sank a Jeep Liberty. See, the island—a short ferry ride from the eastern tip of the state’s Upper Peninsula—is a 25-mile-long series of limestone bowls (which hold water) and cedar swamps (ditto) surrounded by Lake Huron (ditto times a million). Drummond Island, thou art thine own soggy enemy.

This time, we asked Drummond Island Resort’s driving expert, Craig Hoffman, to sketch out a somewhat drier 16-mile loop, two-thirds of which comprised twisty, smooth pavement and one-third of which bumped through the resort’s private off-road facility. On any off-roader’s scale of difficulty, these private trails (notice we said “private” twice?) hover wholly in Wally Cox territory yet still represent pretty much the worst that any owner would throw at his investment. Along this route, we then ran the vehicles back-to-back until the local bowling alley’s neon “BEER” sign lit up.
Our goal was to compare six mid-size unibody crossovers with all-wheel drive, third-row seats, and the sort of interior volumes that would ensure family-hauling nirvana.

The Honda Pilot and the Toyota Highlander have recently been comprehensively refurbished, inside and out. Chevy’s Traverse is the latest flavor of the platform shared with Buick’s Enclave, GMC’s Acadia, and Saturn’s Outlook. The Traverse is the first we’ve tested with the direct-injection V-6, but the other three also get it for ’09. Hyundai’s Veracruz isn’t brand-new but has never competed in a C/D comparo. Having secured a position on our ’08 5Best Trucks list, Mazda’s CX-9 simply had to be in the mix. And although a Ford Taurus X might have looked a better fit in this group, we opted for the brand-new Flex. Both rely on the same drivetrain, and the Taurus X is soon to be discontinued.

Unibodies were the order of the day, so body-on-framers, such as Nissan’s Path­finder, were excluded. Ditto a couple of crossovers with notably smaller interior volumes—Subaru’s Tribeca, for instance.

We had hoped that with AWD and a nice load of options our vehicles would all max out at about $38,000. Alas, the only Highlander that Toyota could offer, at least with a third-row seat, was a loaded $42,799 Limited, so we used it for back-seat tests only. The Highlander Sport we drove to the island had no third-row seat and was sparsely outfitted—cloth seats, for instance—but was a whale of a bargain at $33,648. Adding a third row to our car would bump its price to $34,433, which is the number we used in the chart and for scoring purposes.

We were disappointed that our six crossovers managed an observed average of only 19 mpg. Sign of the times: On the way north, we observed a man riding a Schwinn. With a bag of golf clubs slung over his shoulder and a full-size Igloo cooler in his left hand, he was a candidate for a closed head injury. “What you got there,” observed associate editor Tony Quiroga, “is a guy with an SUV parked in his garage.”
****1st Place****
2009 Honda Pilot EX-L 4WD
Highs: A veritable woodsman off-road, torsional rigidity of an I-beam.
Lows: Cluttered center stack, a firm ride, could use another 20 horses.
The Verdict: A civilized crossover that feels as unbreakable as a truck.
Link to the full review;
****2nd Place****
2008 Mazda CX-9 Grand Touring AWD
Highs: Luxurious cabin, unhindered sightlines, great freeway cruiser.
Lows: Some high-frequency ride jitters, a sense of fragility off-road.
The Verdict: An SUV that replaces a minivan and comes out grinning.
Link to the full review;
****3rd Place****
2008 Toyota Highlander Sport 4X4
Highs: A rocket to 60 mph, ergonomic center stack, exquisite drivetrain.
Lows: Low-rent cabin surfaces, odd on-center steering feel, slim cargo capacity.
The Verdict: Soothingly carlike family fare that is affordably family fair.
Link to the full review;
****4th Place****
2009 Ford Flex SEL
Highs: World’s best middle-row seats, cool styling, easy ingress/egress.
Lows: Slow to react, a titch too much NVH, wheel too close to the IP.
The Verdict: As functional as pliers but needs to be more carlike to satisfy.
Link to the full review;
****5th Place****
2009 Chevrolet Traverse LT
Highs: Solid structure, good roll control, a cabin as big as an auditorium.
Lows: Too heavy, poor visibility astern, some cheap cockpit surfaces.
The Verdict: Obesity affects every aspect of an SUV’s vehicular health.
Link to the full Review;
****6th Place****
2008 Hyundai Veracruz Limited AWD
Highs: Amenities galore, refined drivetrain, rides like a ’70s-era Caddy.
Lows: Way too much body roll, vague steering, platform feels twistable.
The Verdict: Functional, rational, justifiable—but not much fun to drive.
Link to the full review;
Here is the Test Sheet