The Highlander Hybrid, RX400H, Freestyle, ML350, Tribeca, Pathfinder, LR3, Mountaineer (05), Grand Cherokee, and H3, placed in that order.
Total order of all midsize SUVs tested by CR:
1. Toyota Highlander Hybrid Limited, $39,885
2. Lexus RX400H, $49,883
3. Lexus RX330, $44,833
4. Honda Pilot EX-L, $34,835
5. BMW X5 3.0, $49,370
6. Toyota Highlander Limited, $35,155
7. Nissan Murano 3.5SL, $36,240
8. Cadillac SRX V8, $53,730
9. Ford Freestyle SEL, $32,675
10. Volvo XC70, $43,360
11. Acura MDX Touring, $43,045
12. Infiniti FX35, $39,960
13. Mercedes-Benz ML350, $48,880
14. BMW X3 2.5i, $40,195
15. Lexus GX470, $51,787
16. Mitsubishi Endeavor XLS, $32,394
17. Toyota 4Runner SR5 V6, $33,330
18. Chrysler Pacifica Touring, $33,995
19. Subaru B9 Tribeca Limited, $36,550
20. Volvo XC90 T6, $46,815
21. Nissan Pathfinder LE, $36,160
22. Land Rover LR3 SE V8, $50,160
23. VW Touareg V6, $43,645
24. 2005 Mercury Moutaineer Luxury V8, $39,200
25. 2005-gen Ford Explorer XLT V6, $34,625
26. Dodge Durango Limited 5.7, $39,620
27. Buick Rendezvous CXL 3.4, $36,242
28. Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo 4.7, $35,300
29. Mitsubishi Montero Limited, $36,394
30. GMC Envoy SLE 4.2, $34,935
31. Chevrolet TrailBlazer EXT LT 4.2, $36,875
32. Hummer H3, $36,915
Details on test vehicles to follow. Ask for any additional info.
Highlander Hybrid AWD:
Acceleration: 4/5 (7.4 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 5/5
Routine Handling: 4/5
Emergency Handling: 3/5
Braking: 3/5
Ride: 4/5
Noise: 4/5
Driving Position: 4/5
Access: 5/5
Controls and Displays: 5/5
Fit and Finish: 4/5
Cargo Area:
Front Seat: 4/5
Rear Seat: 5/5
Third Seat: 1/5
Fuel Economy: 3/5, 22 mpg
RX400H AWD:
Acceleration: 4/5 (7.4 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 5/5
Routine Handling: 4/5
Emergency Handling: 2/5
Braking: 3/5
Ride: 4/5
Noise: 5/5
Driving Position: 4/5
Access: 5/5
Controls and Displays: 4/5
Fit and Finish: 5/5
Cargo Area:
Front Seat: 5/5
Rear Seat: 4/5
Third Seat: NA
Fuel Economy: 3/5, 23 mpg
Freestyle SEL AWD:
Acceleration: 3/5 (9.1 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 5/5
Routine Handling: 4/5
Emergency Handling: 2/5
Braking: 3/5
Ride: 4/5
Noise: 4/5
Driving Position: 4/5
Access: 5/5
Controls and Displays: 4/5
Fit and Finish: 4/5
Cargo Area: 3/5
Front Seat: 4/5
Rear Seat: 4/5
Third Seat: 2/5
Fuel Economy: 2/5, 18 mpg
ML350 4WD:
Acceleration: 4/5 (7.8 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 3/5
Routine Handling: 4/5
Emergency Handling: 3/5
Braking: 4/5
Ride: 4/5
Noise: 4/5
Driving Position: 4/5
Access: 4/5
Controls and Displays: 3/5
Fit and Finish: 5/5
Cargo Area: 3/5
Front Seat: 4/5
Rear Seat: 5/5
Third Seat: NA
Fuel Economy: 1/5, 16 mpg
B9 Tribeca:
Acceleration: 3/5 (10.0 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 3/5
Routine Handling: 4/5
Emergency Handling: 3/5
Braking: 4/5
Ride: 4/5
Noise: 4/5
Driving Position: 3/5
Access: 4/5
Controls and Displays: 4/5
Fit and Finish: 5/5
Cargo Area: 3/5
Front Seat: 4/5
Rear Seat: 3/5
Third Seat: 1/5
Fuel Economy: 1/5, 16 mpg
Pathfinder 4WD:
Acceleration: 4/5 (8.0 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 5/5
Routine Handling: 4/5
Emergency Handling: 2/5
Braking: 3/5
Ride: 3/5
Noise: 4/5
Driving Position: 4/5
Access: 4/5
Controls and Displays: 4/5
Fit and Finish: 4/5
Cargo Area: 4/5
Front Seat: 4/5
Rear Seat: 3/5
Third Seat: 1/5
Fuel Economy: 1/5, 15 mpg
LR3 4.4:
Acceleration: 3/5 (9.1 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 4/5
Routine Handling: 3/5
Emergency Handling: 2/5
Braking: 4/5
Ride: 3/5
Noise: 4/5
Driving Position: 4/5
Access: 4/5
Controls and Displays: 3/5
Fit and Finish: 4/5
Cargo Area: 4/5
Front Seat: 4/5
Rear Seat: 4/5
Third Seat: 3/5
Fuel Economy: 1/5, 13 mpg
05 Mountaineer 4.6 AWD:
Acceleration: 4/5 (8.9 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 4/5
Routine Handling: 3/5
Emergency Handling: 3/5
Braking: 4/5
Ride: 3/5
Noise: 4/5
Driving Position: 4/5
Access: 4/5
Controls and Displays: 4/5
Fit and Finish: 4/5
Cargo Area: 4/5
Front Seat: 4/5
Rear Seat: 4/5
Third Seat: 2/5
Fuel Economy: 1/5, 14 mpg
Grand Cherokee 4.7 4WD:
Acceleration: 4/5 (8.8 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 4/5
Routine Handling: 3/5
Emergency Handling: 2/5
Braking: 3/5
Ride: 3/5
Noise: 4/5
Driving Position: 3/5
Access: 4/5
Controls and Displays: 5/5
Fit and Finish: 3/5
Cargo Area: 3/5
Front Seat: 4/5
Rear Seat: 3/5
Third Seat: NA
Fuel Economy: 1/5, 14 mpg
H3:
Acceleration: 2/5 (11.5 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 4/5
Routine Handling: 3/5
Emergency Handling: 2/5
Braking: 3/5
Ride: 2/5
Noise: 3/5
Driving Position: 3/5
Access: 2/5
Controls and Displays: 4/5
Fit and Finish: 4/5
Cargo Area: 3/5
Front Seat: 4/5
Rear Seat: 3/5
Third Seat: NA
Fuel Economy: 1/5, 14 mpg
So the majority of the expensive ones are at the top and the less expensive ones are at the bottom...so...yes that makes sense, but it doesn't to the consumer.
That's not the case at all. There are expensive vehicles that scored poorly and inexpensive ones that scored well.
But for the majority, the more expensive ones are at the top.
In the top ten vehicles, half are above and half below the $40,000 mark as tested. That's a surprising spread IMO, most people tend to expect the most expensive cars to be the best.
The hybrids are rather quick.
Right, Toyotas are the best things out there.
I do not like that list one bit. Too much to compare within different vehicles.
QuoteHighlander Hybrid AWD:
Acceleration: 4/5 (7.4 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 5/5
Routine Handling: 4/5
Emergency Handling: 3/5
Braking: 3/5
Ride: 4/5
Noise: 4/5
Driving Position: 4/5
Access: 5/5
Controls and Displays: 5/5
Fit and Finish: 4/5
Cargo Area:
Front Seat: 4/5
Rear Seat: 5/5
Third Seat: 1/5
Fuel Economy: 3/5, 22 mpg
RX400H AWD:
Acceleration: 4/5 (7.4 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 5/5
Routine Handling: 4/5
Emergency Handling: 2/5
Braking: 3/5
Ride: 4/5
Noise: 5/5
Driving Position: 4/5
Access: 5/5
Controls and Displays: 4/5
Fit and Finish: 5/5
Cargo Area:
Front Seat: 5/5
Rear Seat: 4/5
Third Seat: NA
Fuel Economy: 3/5, 23 mpg
Freestyle SEL AWD:
Acceleration: 3/5 (9.1 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 5/5
Routine Handling: 4/5
Emergency Handling: 2/5
Braking: 3/5
Ride: 4/5
Noise: 4/5
Driving Position: 4/5
Access: 5/5
Controls and Displays: 4/5
Fit and Finish: 4/5
Cargo Area: 3/5
Front Seat: 4/5
Rear Seat: 4/5
Third Seat: 2/5
Fuel Economy: 2/5, 18 mpg
ML350 4WD:
Acceleration: 4/5 (7.8 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 3/5
Routine Handling: 4/5
Emergency Handling: 3/5
Braking: 4/5
Ride: 4/5
Noise: 4/5
Driving Position: 4/5
Access: 4/5
Controls and Displays: 3/5
Fit and Finish: 5/5
Cargo Area: 3/5
Front Seat: 4/5
Rear Seat: 5/5
Third Seat: NA
Fuel Economy: 1/5, 16 mpg
B9 Tribeca:
Acceleration: 3/5 (10.0 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 3/5
Routine Handling: 4/5
Emergency Handling: 3/5
Braking: 4/5
Ride: 4/5
Noise: 4/5
Driving Position: 3/5
Access: 4/5
Controls and Displays: 4/5
Fit and Finish: 5/5
Cargo Area: 3/5
Front Seat: 4/5
Rear Seat: 3/5
Third Seat: 1/5
Fuel Economy: 1/5, 16 mpg
Pathfinder 4WD:
Acceleration: 4/5 (8.0 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 5/5
Routine Handling: 4/5
Emergency Handling: 2/5
Braking: 3/5
Ride: 3/5
Noise: 4/5
Driving Position: 4/5
Access: 4/5
Controls and Displays: 4/5
Fit and Finish: 4/5
Cargo Area: 4/5
Front Seat: 4/5
Rear Seat: 3/5
Third Seat: 1/5
Fuel Economy: 1/5, 15 mpg
LR3 4.4:
Acceleration: 3/5 (9.1 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 4/5
Routine Handling: 3/5
Emergency Handling: 2/5
Braking: 4/5
Ride: 3/5
Noise: 4/5
Driving Position: 4/5
Access: 4/5
Controls and Displays: 3/5
Fit and Finish: 4/5
Cargo Area: 4/5
Front Seat: 4/5
Rear Seat: 4/5
Third Seat: 3/5
Fuel Economy: 1/5, 13 mpg
05 Mountaineer 4.6 AWD:
Acceleration: 4/5 (8.9 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 4/5
Routine Handling: 3/5
Emergency Handling: 3/5
Braking: 4/5
Ride: 3/5
Noise: 4/5
Driving Position: 4/5
Access: 4/5
Controls and Displays: 4/5
Fit and Finish: 4/5
Cargo Area: 4/5
Front Seat: 4/5
Rear Seat: 4/5
Third Seat: 2/5
Fuel Economy: 1/5, 14 mpg
Grand Cherokee 4.7 4WD:
Acceleration: 4/5 (8.8 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 4/5
Routine Handling: 3/5
Emergency Handling: 2/5
Braking: 3/5
Ride: 3/5
Noise: 4/5
Driving Position: 3/5
Access: 4/5
Controls and Displays: 5/5
Fit and Finish: 3/5
Cargo Area: 3/5
Front Seat: 4/5
Rear Seat: 3/5
Third Seat: NA
Fuel Economy: 1/5, 14 mpg
H3:
Acceleration: 2/5 (11.5 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 4/5
Routine Handling: 3/5
Emergency Handling: 2/5
Braking: 3/5
Ride: 2/5
Noise: 3/5
Driving Position: 3/5
Access: 2/5
Controls and Displays: 4/5
Fit and Finish: 4/5
Cargo Area: 3/5
Front Seat: 4/5
Rear Seat: 3/5
Third Seat: NA
Fuel Economy: 1/5, 14 mpg
too many different competitors.
QuoteI do not like that list one bit. Too much to compare within different vehicles.
Agreed...To tired to sort through it all
I'm surprised consumers gave the ML350 a 5/5 for fit and finish. Even I would have given it a 4/5. The interior is good and well constructed, but it's not class leading. Oh well, good news for MB. :lol:
But I agree, 0-60 in 7.8 seconds for an ML350 is waaaaaay to slow. The people who buy these cars usually take them on the track on weekends and street race at the stoplight. :rolleyes:
I do, however, think it's hilarious that the H3 was last place.
QuoteI do, however, think it's hilarious that the H3 was last place.
I bet the H2 is on the bottom of the fullsize list. All Hummers are a terrible fit for consumer needs IMO.
IFCAR,
Do you know what the non-hybrid Highlander got for fuel economy?
The NYTIMES tested a couple RX400h's recently, and did a non-scientific MPG test. Here are their results:
"ONE question lingers after driving the 2006 Lexus RX 400h: How did it come to this, that Toyota is now selling a hybrid gas-electric vehicle with no tangible fuel economy benefits?
...
My first seat time in the Lexus hybrid came over a weekend in which I drove the 200 miles from Chicago to Grand Rapids, Mich. I spent a lot of time on the freeway, but I also traveled some back roads and slogged through a couple of stop-and-go city stints. By the time I returned to Chicago, I had put 531 miles on the odometer and calculated my fuel economy at 20.9 m.p.g.
I returned this vehicle to Toyota, but later tested another RX 400h for a week. I drove this one 556 miles and did a bit better, averaging 23.0 m.p.g.
In an effort to make a direct comparison with the conventional gasoline-only Lexus, I contacted Toyota and asked for an RX 330 test car. When the company said that none was available, I called on an acquaintance who had recently bought an RX 330 with all-wheel drive, and made arrangements to drive that vehicle over essentially the same Chicago-Grand Rapids route.
While this was not a controlled experiment, the results from my stint in the RX 330 were nonetheless illuminating: 462 miles traveled, at an average of 21.6 m.p.g."
...
"The ultimate value of this extra thrust is debatable, however, as by Toyota's own admission the hybrid drivetrain cuts only half a second off the RX 330's 0-to-60 acceleration time of 7.8 seconds. The culprit here is the extra 300 pounds of mass the hybrid has to haul around, which pushes its unloaded weight to 4,365 pounds"
QuoteI do, however, think it's hilarious that the H3 was last place.
Yeah, pretty funny. It strikes me that the typical Hummer buyer is probably not a CR subscriber....
QuoteQuoteI do, however, think it's hilarious that the H3 was last place.
I bet the H2 is on the bottom of the fullsize list. All Hummers are a terrible fit for consumer needs IMO.
They haven't tested it, but I wouldn't doubt that it would be in last place.
QuoteIFCAR,
Do you know what the non-hybrid Highlander got for fuel economy?
A 3.3-liter V6 version got 19 mpg in their testing and 8.8 seconds to 60, versus the 22 mpg and 7.4 0-60 with the Hybrid.
QuoteQuoteI do, however, think it's hilarious that the H3 was last place.
Yeah, pretty funny. It strikes me that the typical Hummer buyer is probably not a CR subscriber....
Hummers just aren't great vehicles for on-road only use, which is what CR is rating all their vehicles for.
QuoteSo the majority of the expensive ones imports are at the top and the less expensive ones domestics are at the bottom...so...yes that makes sense, but it doesn't to the consumer.
:o :ph34r:
21 of the 32 vehicles on the list are imports, you can find them in all parts of the list, including the 4th-from-last Montero.
1. import
2. import
3. import
4. import
5. import
6. import
7. import
8. domestic
9. domestic
10. import
11. import
12. import
13. import
14. import
15. import
16. import
17. import
18. domestic
19. import
20. import
21. import
22. import
23. import
24. domestic
25. domestic
26. domestic
27. domestic
28. domestic
29. import
30. domestic
31. domestic
32. domestic
There's a very clear pattern there.
Quote1. import CAR
2. import CAR
3. import CAR
4. import CAR
5. import CAR
6. import CAR
7. import CAR
8. domestic CAR
9. domestic CAR
10. import CAR
11. import CAR
12. import CAR
13. import CAR
14. import CAR
15. import TRUCK
16. import CAR
17. import TRUCK
18. domestic CAR
19. import CAR
20. import CAR
21. import TRUCK
22. import TRUCK
23. import CAR
24. domestic TRUCK
25. domestic TRUCK
26. domestic TRUCK
27. domestic CAR
28. domestic TRUCK
29. import TRUCK
30. domestic TRUCK
31. domestic TRUCK
32. domestic TRUCK
There's a very clear pattern there.
Definitely, it shows that CR prefers cars to trucks. Not only were far more of the imports car-based vehicles, but even their truck-based vehicles are designed with car-like behavior. Three of the four domestic car-based vehicles scored well, two very well, and the only one that didn't was last tested using an engine that is no longer produced. And the import truck-based vehicles scored relatively low as well.
Import bias or priorities that essentially ignore traditional truck benefits?
Quote1. import
2. import
3. import
4. import
5. import
6. import
7. import
8. domestic
9. domestic
10. import
11. import
12. import
13. import
14. import
15. import
16. import
17. import
18. domestic
19. import
20. import
21. import
22. import
23. import
24. domestic
25. domestic
26. domestic
27. domestic
28. domestic
29. import
30. domestic
31. domestic
32. domestic
There's a very clear pattern there.
Good one.
" too many different competitors."
So you thought it would be a good idea to quote the whole results list? :rolleyes: