Comparison review: Eight compact SUVs

[2o6]

Saturn doesn't make a 4-cylinder AWD vehicle.

You can't get a 4cyl AWD Vue?

[ifcar]

You can't get a 4cyl AWD Vue?

Is that not what I just said, and something you could have checked for yourself if you didn't believe it the first time?

[cawimmer430]

Great writing. I should take lessons from Brady. 

[Vinsanity]

Is that not what I just said, and something you could have checked for yourself if you didn't believe it the first time?

*butts in on behalf of 2o6*

don't get sassy with me, mister

*butts out*

[FoMoJo]

I'm a bit sceptical about the RAV4's mpg claim.  It's only a 4 spd automatic, weighs a bit more than the Escape, and claims a bit more hp.  The only factors which might improve mileage, compared to the others, is narrower tires and less ground clearance; other than taller overall gearing which would make it a dog driving on other than flat terrain.

[ifcar]

I'm a bit sceptical about the RAV4's mpg claim.  It's only a 4 spd automatic, weighs a bit more than the Escape, and claims a bit more hp.  The only factors which might improve mileage, compared to the others, is narrower tires and less ground clearance; other than taller overall gearing which would make it a dog driving on other than flat terrain.

There's more to gas mileage than a collection of specifications.

[ifcar]

Seventh Place: 2009 Suzuki Grand Vitara Premium

For a vehicle that ranks so low, the Suzuki Grand Vitara can come off as an awfully nice vehicle.

It?s comfortable inside, at least for four adult passengers. Its engine is quiet and acceptably peppy. Its interior feels upscale of the others in this comparison. Its handling is almost nimble.

But the Grand Vitara suffers from the ?excepts"...

Continued at link:
http://www.examiner.com/x-1017-DC-Car-Examiner~y2009m4d14-Comparsion-review-eight-compact-SUVs-seventh-place

[S204STi]

I would take the Suzuki over most of these for the simple fact that it's available with a two-speed transfer case.

[ifcar]

I would take the Suzuki over most of these for the simple fact that it's available with a two-speed transfer case.

Would you just pick it over other car-based SUVs for being closer to a truck, or would you actually buy it over a truck-based competitor like the Xterra?

[S204STi]

Would you just pick it over other car-based SUVs for being closer to a truck, or would you actually buy it over a truck-based competitor like the Xterra?

Well, the first really.  Good point... I wouldn't take it over a true truck based 4x4 with real offroad potential, but I would take it over most other soft roaders, other than maybe the Subaru just because of the available turbo.  Makes it a great all weather mountain car, IMHO.

[FoMoJo]

There's more to gas mileage than a collection of specifications.

Give some examples.

[ifcar]

Give some examples.

How? With the RAV4 example, you said you were just "skeptical of the mileage claim." If you don't believe fuel economy numbers are accurate, what would persuade you?

[FoMoJo]

How? With the RAV4 example, you said you were just "skeptical of the mileage claim." If you don't believe fuel economy numbers are accurate, what would persuade you?

You made a statement "There's more to gas mileage than a collection of specifications.".  I'm just asking for examples of the "more to gas mileage" factors.

Certainly, vehicle weight, aerodynamics, engine size and ratings, type of transmission, tire size and pressure, etc. influence mileage.  What are the other factors?

[ifcar]

You made a statement "There's more to gas mileage than a collection of specifications.".  I'm just asking for examples of the "more to gas mileage" factors.

Certainly, vehicle weight, aerodynamics, engine size and ratings, type of transmission, tire size and pressure, etc. influence mileage.  What are the other factors?

Engineering of the engine and transmission, both in efficiency and gearing, instead of just numbers? How about the aerodynamics? How about the tires?

[FoMoJo]

Engineering of the engine and transmission, both in efficiency and gearing, instead of just numbers? How about the aerodynamics? How about the tires?

That's, pretty much, what I said.  Do you have any further factors which would influence mileage?

[ifcar]

That's, pretty much, what I said.  Do you have any further factors which would influence mileage?

Those are highly significant factors beyond horsepower, weight, and the number of gears in the transmission. What more are you looking for?

[FoMoJo]

This is becoming a bit circular .

I said...

I'm a bit sceptical about the RAV4's mpg claim.  It's only a 4 spd automatic, weighs a bit more than the Escape, and claims a bit more hp.  The only factors which might improve mileage, compared to the others, is narrower tires and less ground clearance; other than taller overall gearing which would make it a dog driving on other than flat terrain.

You said...

There's more to gas mileage than a collection of specifications.

...to which, I said...

Give some examples.

Then, you said...

How? With the RAV4 example, you said you were just "skeptical of the mileage claim." If you don't believe fuel economy numbers are accurate, what would persuade you?

Having identified engine, transmission, ride height (in reference to aerodynmics) tire size and weight as factors, I said...

You made a statement "There's more to gas mileage than a collection of specifications.".  I'm just asking for examples of the "more to gas mileage" factors.

Certainly, vehicle weight, aerodynamics, engine size and ratings, type of transmission, tire size and pressure, etc. influence mileage.  What are the other factors?

...and you replied...

Engineering of the engine and transmission, both in efficiency and gearing, instead of just numbers? How about the aerodynamics? How about the tires?

...which is, pretty much, what I said,

...so I said...

That's, pretty much, what I said.  Do you have any further factors which would influence mileage?

...and then you, somewhat puzzlingly said...

Those are highly significant factors beyond horsepower, weight, and the number of gears in the transmission. What more are you looking for?

Just what are those "highly significant factors" beyond a mention of engineering which is implied when you're connecting an engine to a transmission?  If you read the write-ups on these vehicles, you'll notice that most of them are engineered for efficiency.  Has Toyota managed to do a much better job with 4 speeds compared to the others 5, 6 and CVTs?  I don't believe them.

If you disagree, identify some factors which may influence such a significantly better mileage claim.

[2o6]

You made a statement "There's more to gas mileage than a collection of specifications.".  I'm just asking for examples of the "more to gas mileage" factors.

Certainly, vehicle weight, aerodynamics, engine size and ratings, type of transmission, tire size and pressure, etc. influence mileage.  What are the other factors?

You answered your own question.

[FoMoJo]

You answered your own question.

Those are the ones I originally stated/implied.  He said there was more.  I'd like him to give examples of the 'more'.

[ifcar]

No, you listed some numbers about the engine and transmission. How about the engineering behind them? All engines are not created equal. Not every 3500-lb sedan with a 3.5-liter V6, 5-speed automatic, and 250 horsepower would get the same gas mileage.

And as I said earlier, I don't see how I could prove that, because you don't seem to trust any gas mileage stats.

[FoMoJo]

No, you listed some numbers about the engine and transmission. How about the engineering behind them? All engines are not created equal. Not every 3500-lb sedan with a 3.5-liter V6, 5-speed automatic, and 250 horsepower would get the same gas mileage.

And as I said earlier, I don't see how I could prove that, because you don't seem to trust any gas mileage stats.

As (some of) the others are also engineered for fuel efficiency, I just don't believe that the Rav4 can do that much of a better job when they only have 4 gears to work with while the others have up to 6 as well as the Outlander having a CVT; and other aspects being similar.  However, if you can't add any enlightenment in this regard, forget it .

I do appreciate your journalistic efforts, however.  You've done an excellent job .

[ifcar]

As (some of) the others are also engineered for fuel efficiency, I just don't believe that the Rav4 can do that much of a better job when they only have 4 gears to work with while the others have up to 6 as well as the Outlander having a CVT; and other aspects being similar.  However, if you can't add any enlightenment in this regard, forget it .

I do appreciate your journalistic efforts, however.  You've done an excellent job .

The number of gears just isn't all that significant in some cases. You can have a good 4-speed that's good at finding the right gear, or a 6-speed that shifts at the wrong time or hunts. And a 4-speed automatic could be geared for fuel efficiency and the 6 for performance.

There are just many more variables than horsepower, number of transmission speeds, and weight.

[FoMoJo]

The number of gears just isn't all that significant in some cases. You can have a good 4-speed that's good at finding the right gear, or a 6-speed that shifts at the wrong time or hunts. And a 4-speed automatic could be geared for fuel efficiency and the 6 for performance.

There are just many more variables than horsepower, number of transmission speeds, and weight.

And I agree with what you're saying.  However, as most of the SUVs in your comparison are engineered for fuel efficiency, I just don't see how the Rav4 can claim to have done it so much better.  Of course, a realistic on-road comparison could prove it.  Although this article on the Escape is more of a PR exercise, it does express the value that Ford has placed on the fuel efficiency aspect.

I would like to see a real-world fuel efficiency comparison between (especially) the Escape and the Rav4; if you come across one.

[ifcar]

And I agree with what you're saying.  However, as most of the SUVs in your comparison are engineered for fuel efficiency, I just don't see how the Rav4 can claim to have done it so much better.  Of course, a realistic on-road comparison could prove it.  Although this article on the Escape is more of a PR exercise, it does express the value that Ford has placed on the fuel efficiency aspect.

I would like to see a real-world fuel efficiency comparison between (especially) the Escape and the Rav4; if you come across one.

This is just another standardized test instead of true "real world," but Consumer Reports got 23 mpg combined from its RAV4 vs. 21 for the comparable Escape, which at the very least indicates the RAV4 isn't just geared to only perform well on the EPA test cycle.

[NomisR]

Sheesh, there's already this much argument when you guys agree on something, I hate to see what happens when you guys disagree. 

[ifcar]

Sixth Place: 2009 Mitsubishi Outlander SE

The formula seems strong: a spacious, practical interior combined with responsive handling for around $21,000. With this going for it, the Mitsubishi Outlander seems like it could be a solid choice as the compact SUV for driving enthusiasts or anyone else who likes to go fast around corners.

Unfortunately, a roomy interior and agile handling pretty much represent the sum total of the Outlander?s talents...

Continued at link:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-1017-DC-Car-Examiner~y2009m4d15-Comparsion-review-eight-compact-SUVs-sixth-place

[Eye of the Tiger]

your links are a little screwy...

[ifcar]

your links are a little screwy...

Just fixed the one from the current post...are other wrong as well?

[Eye of the Tiger]

Just fixed the one from the current post...are other wrong as well?

Yeah, you might want to double check the rest of the links on your page..

[2o6]

It seems like all of the cars are very, very close. (Aside from the Patriot)