CR reviews small SUVs

[ifcar]

Rankings of all tested small SUVs:

1. Forester
2. CRV
3. RAV4
4. Tucson
5. Escape Hybrid
6. Escape V6
7. Element
8. Xterra
9. Santa Fe
10. Outlander
11. Vue
12. Equinox
13. XL-7
14. Sorento
15. Freelander
16. Liberty V6
17. Liberty CDI
18. Aztek
19. Wrangler

Ratings of vehicles just tested:

CR-V EX:
Acceleration: 3/5 (0-60, 10.4)
Transmission: 5/5
Routine Handling: 4/5
Emergency Handling: 3/5
Braking: 4/5
Headlights: 3/5
Ride: 4/5
Noise: 3/5
Driving Position: 4/5
Front Seat: 4/5
Rear Seat: 4/5
Access: 4/5
Controls and Displays: 4/5
Fit and Finish: 4/5
Cargo area: 3/5
Fuel Economy: 3/5 (21 mpg)

Tucson GLS V6:
Acceleration: 3/5 (0-60, 10.1)
Transmission: 4/5
Routine Handling: 3/5
Emergency Handling: 3/5
Braking: 4/5
Headlights: 2/5
Ride: 4/5
Noise: 4/5
Driving Position: 4/5
Front Seat: 4/5
Rear Seat: 4/5
Access: 4/5
Controls and Displays: 5/5
Fit and Finish: 4/5
Cargo area: 3/5
Fuel Economy: 2/5 (18 mpg)

Escape Hybrid:
Acceleration: 3/5 (0-60, 10.7)
Transmission: 4/5
Routine Handling: 4/5
Emergency Handling: 3/5
Braking: 3/5
Headlights: 3/5
Ride: 3/5
Noise: 3/5
Driving Position: 4/5
Front Seat: 4/5
Rear Seat: 4/5
Access: 4/5
Controls and Displays: 4/5
Fit and Finish: 3/5
Cargo area: 3/5
Fuel Economy: 4/5 (26 mpg)

Xterra S:
Acceleration: 4/5 (0-60, 7.7)
Transmission: 5/5
Routine Handling: 3/5
Emergency Handling: 3/5
Braking: 4/5
Headlights: 3/5
Ride: 2/5
Noise: 4/5
Driving Position: 4/5
Front Seat: 4/5
Rear Seat: 4/5
Access: 3/5
Controls and Displays: 4/5
Fit and Finish: 4/5
Cargo area: 4/5
Fuel Economy: 1/5 (17 mpg)

Liberty CDI:
Acceleration: 2/5 (0-60, 12.4)
Transmission: 4/5
Routine Handling: 3/5
Emergency Handling: 2/5
Braking: 3/5
Headlights: 3/5
Ride: 3/5
Noise: 2/5
Driving Position: 4/5
Front Seat: 4/5
Rear Seat: 3/5
Access: 3/5
Controls and Displays: 4/5
Fit and Finish: 3/5
Cargo area: 3/5
Fuel Economy: 2/5 (18 mpg)

Wrangler Unlimited:
Acceleration: 3/5 (0-60, 10.3)
Transmission: 3/5
Routine Handling: 2/5
Emergency Handling: 2/5
Braking: 2/5
Headlights: 3/5
Ride: 2/5
Noise: 2/5
Driving Position: 2/5
Front Seat: 3/5
Rear Seat: 2/5
Access: 2/5
Controls and Displays: 3/5
Fit and Finish: 2/5
Cargo area: 3/5
Fuel Economy: 1/5 (14 mpg)

[crv16]

I was kinda surprised how poorly the Jeep Liberty CDI rated.

"Engine sounds like a farm tractor"

Overall performance was pitiful, especially towing.  What's the point of picking this over a much cheaper and better performing Xterra?

If one doesn't tow or go off road, it seems one would be far better off with a CR-V.

[Raghavan]

Forester, CR-V, and RAV-4, my 3 favorite came in the top 3.

[ifcar]

Forester, CR-V, and RAV-4, my 3 favorite came in the top 3.

Your favorites, all FWD.  <_<  

[Raghavan]

Forester, CR-V, and RAV-4, my 3 favorite came in the top 3.

Your favorites, all FWD.  <_<

the Forester is rear biased, and the others have 4wd, just fwd based.  

[ifcar]

Forester, CR-V, and RAV-4, my 3 favorite came in the top 3.

Your favorites, all FWD.  <_<

the Forester is rear biased, and the others have 4wd, just fwd based.

The CRV, for example, runs in FWD unless additional traction is needed. That's basically FWD (a setup you don't understand the merits and demerits of anyway).

[Raghavan]

Forester, CR-V, and RAV-4, my 3 favorite came in the top 3.

Your favorites, all FWD.  <_<

the Forester is rear biased, and the others have 4wd, just fwd based.

The CRV, for example, runs in FWD unless additional traction is needed. That's basically FWD (a setup you don't understand the merits and demerits of anyway).

i understand the merits and demerits of FWD, i just refuse to reason with them.  

[Secret Chimp]

Geez, I didn't know the old AMC 4.0 was THAT awful on gas mileage.

[TBR]

Geez, I didn't know the old AMC 4.0 was THAT awful on gas mileage.

It really isn't, those CR guys just push their vehicles hard . Actually, apparantly it is, it is rated 14/18. Of course, the CDI is rated 21/26 and they didn't get even close to that.  

[ifcar]

CR's overall mileage is typically similar to EPA city mileage, with a few exceptions (most typically with more fuel-efficient cars, but there are examples in all types).

[93JC]

Geez, I didn't know the old AMC 4.0 was THAT awful on gas mileage.

Gearing and aerodynamics has more to do with it than design.  :)

[ifcar]

Geez, I didn't know the old AMC 4.0 was THAT awful on gas mileage.

Gearing and aerodynamics has more to do with it than design.  :)

What's the mileage of an 00 Cherokee with the 4.0?

[Tom]

There's a few oranges thrown in with the apples.

[93JC]

Geez, I didn't know the old AMC 4.0 was THAT awful on gas mileage.

Gearing and aerodynamics has more to do with it than design.  :)

What's the mileage of an 00 Cherokee with the 4.0?

Can't remember off the top of my head. Better than 14/18, that's for damned sure. My '93 was something like 16/24.

[ifcar]

Geez, I didn't know the old AMC 4.0 was THAT awful on gas mileage.

Gearing and aerodynamics has more to do with it than design.  :)

What's the mileage of an 00 Cherokee with the 4.0?

Can't remember off the top of my head. Better than 14/18, that's for damned sure. My '93 was something like 16/24.

Looked it up. 16/20 for a 4.0 Cherokee 4WD automatic, which is better but still not great for a fairly small SUV.

[93JC]

Of course. It's terrible. Like I said: gearing and aerodynamics.

Cherokee had exactly the same gearing, and only slightly better aerodynamics, hence the fuel economy is only slightly better.