My comparison: 10 compact crossovers

[ifcar]

http://www.examiner.com/list/comparison-review-ten-2016-compact-crossover-suvs-the-best-and-the-worst

I may have finally found a format I'm happy to stick to. Like the last one, the introduction includes a cursory summary of the 10 included models; the individual reviews go into more depth and have full photo galleries; and the ranking and rating articles use one big chart instead of lots of smaller ones.

For an idea of how the ratings came to be without needing a ton of depth, the rankings and ratings articles are the quickest summary (http://www.examiner.com/article/comparison-review-ten-2016-compact-crossover-suvs-ratings , http://www.examiner.com/article/comparison-review-ten-2016-compact-crossover-suvs-rankings ); for the quickest of skims, you won't even have to click the links:

[SVT666]

How you can rate the Mitsubishi in any position but 23rd is beyond me. I can't argue with the rest, but the Mitsubishi is one of the worst cars I've driven in recent years.

[ifcar]

How you can rate the Mitsubishi in any position but 23rd is beyond me. I can't argue with the rest, but the Mitsubishi is one of the worst cars I've driven in recent years.

I don't know if you drove the updated 2016, which is still slow and still isn't any fun, but it's less of a tin can than in the past. I almost didn't bother driving it, but if you can tolerate how it drives -- some people will, some won't -- it's not the worst value option.

[12,000 RPM]

Wish you had got the Sportage in the mix but it's too new. Surprised you thought the CR-V was the 2nd best driver's choice, even over the Ford.

[ifcar]

Wish you had got the Sportage in the mix but it's too new. Surprised you thought the CR-V was the 2nd best driver's choice, even over the Ford.

The two different charts are done differently. The second one, which is isolated for individual topics, does have the Escape ranked above the CR-V for driving dynamics. The first one looks at which one, all things considered, I'd recommend first to someone with a certain preference. So the Escape is going to be a little sportier to drive (even after the CR-V's 2015 updates), it's hard to recommend it over the CR-V due to a host of other issues such as seat comfort, build quality, safety ratings, and fuel economy.

I considered squeezing in the Sportage, but it seems the only competitive one is the loaded SX with the turbo engine; the LX and EX have terrible fuel economy. Given also that the Tucson didn't impress me at all, and that Kia didn't let me option up the Sportage to remotely match the other cars in the comparison, it didn't seem worth it. I hope to drive one in the near future, though -- both a 2.4-liter and a 2.0 turbo.

[AutobahnSHO]

nice work!

I've been eyeing those new Foresters.... 

[Raza]

It's the Subaru or the Mazda for me.  Leaning Mazda. 

[veeman]

It's the Subaru or the Mazda for me.  Leaning Mazda. 

Didn't realize you were in the market for something to park on the streets of Philly.  Why not a VW GTI or something like that?  Does it snow that much?

[12,000 RPM]

The two different charts are done differently. The second one, which is isolated for individual topics, does have the Escape ranked above the CR-V for driving dynamics. The first one looks at which one, all things considered, I'd recommend first to someone with a certain preference. So the Escape is going to be a little sportier to drive (even after the CR-V's 2015 updates), it's hard to recommend it over the CR-V due to a host of other issues such as seat comfort, build quality, safety ratings, and fuel economy.

I considered squeezing in the Sportage, but it seems the only competitive one is the loaded SX with the turbo engine; the LX and EX have terrible fuel economy. Given also that the Tucson didn't impress me at all, and that Kia didn't let me option up the Sportage to remotely match the other cars in the comparison, it didn't seem worth it. I hope to drive one in the near future, though -- both a 2.4-liter and a 2.0 turbo.

Fuel economy aside the Sportage seems pretty competitive. I think both versions get better mileage than my wife's Rabbit for example I've heard they are pretty good handlers, though I'm skeptical about the steering. In any case when you get your hands on one I'd def love to see your thoughts.

Did you get to review the previous Sportage, the Q5, and/or the MKC? I'm asking "for a friend" 

[ifcar]

Here's my review of the Sportage from my previous comparison:
http://www.examiner.com/article/review-2013-kia-sportage-ex-seventh-place

The new Sportage's mileage is really shockingly bad. Worse even than the outgoing model's, which was already not great. I'm scheduled for a 2017 SX next week, though.

I haven't driven the MKC or Q5, but they're without a doubt a big cut above the old Sportage. And if disappointing Tucson is any indication, the new one won't be a dramatic transition, but I'll know soon enough.

[12,000 RPM]

That is such a bummer. It looked like such a great fit for us. I still want to check out the old SX. Maybe the issues won't matter as much to us. Def not doing a fucking CR-V or RAV-4 and my recent Mazda3 experience has turned me off from the CX-5. Need something with a little more punch and pizazz.

[Raza]

Didn't realize you were in the market for something to park on the streets of Philly.  Why not a VW GTI or something like that?  Does it snow that much?

Not really in the market.  The only car currently that piques my interest is the Discovery Sport:



Want an AWD practical car that my brother and I can both drive (which means automatic for him, a little more luxurious, for him.  AWD is for me, since the Z4 and snow don't go well together, cargo space is for both of us, since he's got an S4).  With the aggressive lease deals on the Disco Sport, it's probably cheaper than getting any of these cars.  Lease deals from $399!

[12,000 RPM]

Ooooo that could actually work.

[ifcar]

That is such a bummer. It looked like such a great fit for us. I still want to check out the old SX. Maybe the issues won't matter as much to us. Def not doing a fucking CR-V or RAV-4 and my recent Mazda3 experience has turned me off from the CX-5. Need something with a little more punch and pizazz.

How would you feel about something a bit bigger? The Ford Edge and Hyundai Santa Fe Sport turbo aren't half bad.

[Raza]

Ooooo that could actually work.

I know, right?  Seems like a slam dunk to me. 

[12,000 RPM]

I know, right?  Seems like a slam dunk to me.

Lil pricey but it looks really good. More interesting alternative to something like a Q5/X3/NX/GLX; better value than a similarly equipped Macan.

High key now that I think about it the Q5/X3/NX/GLK are like the CR-V/RAV4/Rogue etc for snobs. I like the Q5 and MKC though.

[Xer0]

How would you feel about something a bit bigger? The Ford Edge and Hyundai Santa Fe Sport turbo aren't half bad.

I feel like the RDX is pretty much perfect.  They aren't terribly expensive either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Laconian]

I really liked how the turbo 4 RDX drove. NomisR had one?

[Xer0]

My Grandpa had that car.  That turbo was lagy, but it hit like a fucking brick when it spooled up.

[CALL_911]

I really liked how the turbo 4 RDX drove. NomisR had one?

My girlfriend has one, it's definitely a fun car to drive. I also like its interior. All in all, I'm a fan.

[MrH]

My mom just got a new RDX a few months ago. Great utilization of the space. Back seat is pretty big, but the exterior seems tiny compared to my 4Runner.

[Laconian]

My mom just got a new RDX a few months ago. Great utilization of the space. Back seat is pretty big, but the exterior seems tiny compared to my 4Runner.

That's probably due to stadium-style seating in the rear, probably? Might as well put the high roof to good use.

[ifcar]

Picked up my Sportage tester today. I haven't had a chance to take it on winding roads yet, but the engine is definitely strong (and with far smoother power delivery than in the last-gen Sportage SX) and the driving dynamics haven't been objectionable yet. The ride is a little busy but very quiet. The cabin has some downscale-feeling plastic trim given the $35,000 price tag; I felt the Tucson had the better ambiance of the two (though of course you can't get the 2.0T with the Tucson).

Gas mileage has also been crushing EPA estimates so far; I've had almost all highway driving so far, but at a computer-reported average of about 27 mpg, versus EPA ratings of 20 city / 23 highway. Of course as with other turbos, the more you're on the boost, the faster it can fall.

[12,000 RPM]

How is the back seat, space wise? What does it compare to? And how is the steering?

EU reviews of the Tiguan are trickling out and it's looking really good. Apparently we are getting a LWB version and possibly a 7 seat version. Hope it's not TOO big.

[ifcar]

How is the back seat, space wise? What does it compare to? And how is the steering?

EU reviews of the Tiguan are trickling out and it's looking really good. Apparently we are getting a LWB version and possibly a 7 seat version. Hope it's not TOO big.

Forgot about this thread; the Sportage did exceed my expectations, though given how disappointed you were in the Mazda3 steering, you wouldn't be satisfied with this one either. Still, I'd put it among the upper tier of its class as far as steering (below the CX-5, though, which is already significantly below the Mazda3).

Rear seat space was adequate but not generous. I can't speak to a car seat, but I fit fine; you just don't get the extra-roomy airy feel of something like a CR-V. The front and rear seats are also at normal SUV height. I'd compare it to what I recall of the current Tiguan as far as space.

Full review: http://www.examiner.com/article/review-2017-kia-sportage-sx-awd-compact-crossover-suv

[MrH]

Sporty, you need to go out and drive some vehicles in this segment.  I think your expectations are way too high.

[12,000 RPM]

I'm not looking for thrills.... just space, quasi-luxury and decent straight line speed. My NVH and build quality baseline is still early 90s Hondas so the bar is really low. I'm wowed by shit like Bluetooth audio and touch screen infotainment. So I don't think the potential for disappointment is high. Plus it's wifey's car, I will probably drive it like 10 times a year max.

[MrH]

If you thought the driving dynamics of the Mazda 3 were bad though, you're going to really struggle with this segment.

[2o6]

If you thought the driving dynamics of the Mazda 3 were bad though, you're going to really struggle with this segment.

This.


The Hyundai twins are usually the absolute worst when it comes to involvement and dynamics

[Laconian]

I'm not looking for thrills.... just space, quasi-luxury and decent straight line speed. My NVH and build quality baseline is still early 90s Hondas so the bar is really low. I'm wowed by shit like Bluetooth audio and touch screen infotainment. So I don't think the potential for disappointment is high. Plus it's wifey's car, I will probably drive it like 10 times a year max.

Still... test drive.