My comparison: 2010 small SUVs

[DC Car Examiner]

Please be sure to mention that the underpinnings are nearly a decade old when you review the Equinox.

 

Much less directly.

[DC Car Examiner]

I don't think so.

 

I've demonstrated that on a financial basis, per unit sold, their NA operations are worse than Ford's were, even during the dark years of '07/'08.

 

What are VW's problem areas?

 

- Reliability

- Marketing

- Price

- 'SmartCar' Features

 

What is VW doing to solve them?

 

- They've moved up significantly from 2004's basement showing, but are still below average.

- Going from bad to worse

- We'll have to see

- No announcements, no predictions

 

So far, the only thing -on the ground- that VW has done to improve its fortunes is fix its horrendous initial quality. It remains to be seen if their VDS scores hold up. VW's abysmal '07 IQS was reflected in their '10 VDS score, so there's reason for some hope there.

 

Hopes for VW turning around in the US hinge on them being able to deliver something that they have NEVER before delivered to the US customer: an affordable and reliable family sedan.

 

And to top it off, they're spending over a billion dollars to build a plant for this sedan. A plant that's going to have a nameplate capacity of about 200k or so.

 

Marketing isn't a problem for VW, and building the cars here is supposed to help address the price problem and maybe even the quality. So let's wait and see.

[sullynd]

Much less directly.

 

No, not really. Equinox is on Theta, which arrived with the VUE not long after the Escape. Even if you want to consider the VUE's version of Theta as distinct from the Equinox, the Equinox arrived in 2004. The CD2 platform of the Escape was thoroughly revised as part of the 2008/2009 model year refreshes. Among other things it received a new interior, exterior, steering system, and powertrains. Theta was thoroughly revised as part of the 2010 Equinox, among other things, it received a new interior, exterior, and powertrains. People like to talk about the Escape as if it is a Panther or Ranger, but the reality is Ford has done considerable upgrades to the vehicle throughout it's life. The "underpinnings" (What do you consider "underpinnings" to be, since they obviously aren't things like powertrains) of the Escape are just as modern, if not more so, than the Equinox.

[DC Car Examiner]

No, not really. Equinox is on Theta, which arrived with the VUE not long after the Escape. Even if you want to consider the VUE's version of Theta as distinct from the Equinox, the Equinox arrived in 2004. The CD2 platform of the Escape was thoroughly revised as part of the 2008/2009 model year refreshes. Among other things it received a new interior, exterior, steering system, and powertrains. Theta was thoroughly revised as part of the 2010 Equinox, among other things, it received a new interior, exterior, and powertrains. People like to talk about the Escape as if it is a Panther or Ranger, but the reality is Ford has done considerable upgrades to the vehicle throughout it's life. The "underpinnings" (What do you consider "underpinnings" to be, since they obviously aren't things like powertrains) of the Escape are just as modern, if not more so, than the Equinox.

 

The 2010 Escape still looks and feels much more like the 2001 inside and out than a 2010 Equinox like a 2002 Vue. Whether that's a factor of how much or how little has changed, I don't know; perhaps it was intentional preservation. (There was certainly more about the 2001 Escape than the 2002 Vue that was worth preserving.)

 

But regardless, yes, it is indeed worth mentioning what GM was able to build out of a vehicle as lousy as the 02 Vue.

[sullynd]

The 2010 Escape still looks and feels much more like the 2001 inside and out than a 2010 Equinox like a 2002 Vue.

 

So "underpinnings"=Appearance? The 2008 Escape looks and feels like the 2001 Escape inside and out? I think you need your eyes and ears checked. Shocking that an Equinox doesn't look like a VUE, isn't it? I mean given that they were sold under two different brands. How silly of Ford to continue stylistically with what has been an enormously successful model. Man, you must really hate Porsche.

Edited May 15, 2010 by sullynd

[DC Car Examiner]

So "underpinnings"=Appearance? The 2008 Escape looks and feels like the 2001 Escape inside and out? I think you need your eyes and ears checked. Shocking that an Equinox doesn't look like a VUE, isn't it? I mean given that they were sold under two different brands. How silly of Ford to continue stylistically with what has been an enormously successful model. Man, you must really hate Porsche.

 

Like other Ford SUV redesigns in recent years (2011 Edge, 2007 Expedition, 2006 Explorer) the midsection of the 2008 Escape is a carryover. The redesign was built around what was already there much more than simple use of the same basic platform. That's entirely different from a decision to maintain the same styling cues across generations.

 

 

I've said this before and it seems to bear repeating here: I don't get why fans of a car get defensive if someone mentions the age of its design. I don't care how old a design is as long as it's still good, and it's worth mentioning merely as a curiosity point, either in "although it's old, it's still good" or "though it was good when it was new back in the day, that's no longer the case." People who get all huffy if someone dares mention the fact that much of the Escape dates to 2001 only undermine the point that it's okay for a competitive car to date to 2001 -- a point that I assume you agree with.

Edited May 15, 2010 by DC Car Examiner

[FordBuyer]

Like other Ford SUV redesigns in recent years (2011 Edge, 2007 Expedition, 2006 Explorer) the midsection of the 2008 Escape is a carryover. The redesign was built around what was already there much more than simple use of the same basic platform. That's entirely different from a decision to maintain the same styling cues across generations.

 

 

I've said this before and it seems to bear repeating here: I don't get why fans of a car get defensive if someone mentions the age of its design. I don't care how old a design is as long as it's still good, and it's worth mentioning merely as a curiosity point, either in "although it's old, it's still good" or "though it was good when it was new back in the day, that's no longer the case." People who get all huffy if someone dares mention the fact that much of the Escape dates to 2001 only undermine the point that it's okay for a competitive car to date to 2001 -- a point that I assume you agree with.

 

No matter how you phrase your defense of the Sportage, there is no way in hell that the Sportage is a better vehicle than the Escape. And I notice that you stay away from talking about residual values which are just important as if not more than initial transaction price. Any used Kia in Metro Detroit is worth far less than new. As I said, a 2008 Escape XLT goes for $20,000 around here and a used Sportage is way off that mark. The present Escape grabs your attention, especially in certain colors, and the Sportage is anonymous. Again, you should have kept it out of your comparison test...it's simply not worthy enough except for maybe bottom feeders buying used three year old Sportage for maybe $10,000. And again, all of us on here realize that present Escape is near the end of its life cycle and middling at best. But the Sportage is downright nasty and not worthy of this comparison test. Sales and used sales prices prove that out as money talks.

[sullynd]

Like other Ford SUV redesigns in recent years (2011 Edge, 2007 Expedition, 2006 Explorer) the midsection of the 2008 Escape is a carryover. The redesign was built around what was already there much more than simple use of the same basic platform. That's entirely different from a decision to maintain the same styling cues across generations.

 

The "midsection" of the Escape was not a carryover - the 2008 model shares no sheet metal (Well, I suppose except the floor pan and maybe the roof) with the 2001.

 

I've said this before and it seems to bear repeating here: I don't get why fans of a car get defensive if someone mentions the age of its design.

 

I'm not defensive - I'm a fan of the Equinox, in fact, I convinced my sister to get one when she replaced her Escape, but the fact is the Escape is no more a carry over than the Equinox is. I don't get why a "journalist" (or blogger, or whatever you care to call yourself, does the Examiner actually get printed??) would miss the fact that the 2008 Escape redesign was not a carry over from the prior model. I can understand the average person on the street, but if you put them side by side they clearly are not.

[DC Car Examiner]

No matter how you phrase your defense of the Sportage, there is no way in hell that the Sportage is a better vehicle than the Escape. And I notice that you stay away from talking about residual values which are just important as if not more than initial transaction price. Any used Kia in Metro Detroit is worth far less than new. As I said, a 2008 Escape XLT goes for $20,000 around here and a used Sportage is way off that mark. The present Escape grabs your attention, especially in certain colors, and the Sportage is anonymous. Again, you should have kept it out of your comparison test...it's simply not worthy enough except for maybe bottom feeders buying used three year old Sportage for maybe $10,000. And again, all of us on here realize that present Escape is near the end of its life cycle and middling at best. But the Sportage is downright nasty and not worthy of this comparison test. Sales and used sales prices prove that out as money talks.

 

All cars are worth much less new than used, and a used Sportage is worth less than a used Escape because it cost less to start. ALG rates the depreciation of both vehicles as 3/5: https://www.alg.com/DepreciationRatings

 

I get that you don't like the Sportage, but besides its looks and rear visibility, you haven't given any reason why. And because you've never been in one, that's understandable. I have, and it's in no way "nasty."

[DC Car Examiner]

The "midsection" of the Escape was not a carryover - the 2008 model shares no sheet metal (Well, I suppose except the floor pan and maybe the roof) with the 2001.

 

 

 

I'm not defensive - I'm a fan of the Equinox, in fact, I convinced my sister to get one when she replaced her Escape, but the fact is the Escape is no more a carry over than the Equinox is. I don't get why a "journalist" (or blogger, or whatever you care to call yourself, does the Examiner actually get printed??) would miss the fact that the 2008 Escape redesign was not a carry over from the prior model. I can understand the average person on the street, but if you put them side by side they clearly are not.

 

Yes, the Escape is more of a carryover than the Equinox is. You just said that it shares a floor pan and roofline -- that alone is more than the Equinox shares with an old Vue.

 

I have never seen anyone anywhere describe the 2008 Escape as a full redesign. As far as I've seen, it has been exclusively described as a heavy update of the original, not a full redesign and a change much less dramatic than the Equinox redesign, Theta retention or no.

[DC Car Examiner]

Fifth Place: Honda CR-V

 

 

Like the seventh-place Ford Escape, the Honda CR-V is a top-selling compact SUV that's pleasant but generally unremarkable. Like the Escape, one of its few key shortcomings is a mediocre showing in a roof-strength crash test. And like the Escape, it's right around the median price for the vehicles in this comparison at around $23,500.

 

Recent updates to the CR-V have made it quicker, more fuel-efficient, and a bit quieter. But these upgrades were not enough to take the CR-V – which earned a third-place finish in last year's comparison – past the two vehicles that beat it last time or past two freshly redesigned competitors...

 

Continued at link: http://www.examiner.com/x-1017-Autos-Examiner~y2010m5d15-Comparison-review-2010-compact-SUVs-fifth-place

[sullynd]

Yes, the Escape is more of a carryover than the Equinox is. You just said that it shares a floor pan and roofline -- that alone is more than the Equinox shares with an old Vue.

 

Ah! I see! "underpinnings"" = roof and floorplan! Now it's clear.

 

I have never seen anyone anywhere describe the 2008 Escape as a full redesign.

 

Me either. Do you think the Equinox was a full redesign? (Neither were.)

 

As far as I've seen, it has been exclusively described as a heavy update of the original, not a full redesign and a change much less dramatic than the Equinox redesign, Theta retention or no.

 

What makes the Equinox change more dramatic? That it looks more different from it's prior model? What does that have to do with "underpinnings"? Beyond aesthetics there is a nearly equal amount of difference.

 

I don't mean to be hard on you - I've seen auto journalists from legitimate newspapers make bigger mistakes.

[RichardJensen]

Marketing isn't a problem for VW, and building the cars here is supposed to help address the price problem and maybe even the quality. So let's wait and see.

 

Both marketing AND advertising suck. Unless you were a big fan of the "Routan boom" commercials or the talking Beetle commercials (most people weren't).

 

VW fired their ad agency (generally evidence they're not getting expected results), but the chuckleheads that approved those dreadful spots are still running things at VW. That means they're just going to get more garbage from whatever new agency they hire.

 

And as to marketing, the lack of any movement in smartcar technology (yeah sure they could be keeping things reallllllll quiet, because, you know VW execs don't like talking all about their future plans all the time) suggests they don't really have a grasp on what is moving the market, especially for younger buyers.

 

Finally, they build the Jetta in MEXICO. M-E-X-I-C-O. If they can't translate Mexican assembly into a reasonably priced product, how will US assembly result in a reasonably priced product?

 

---

 

VW is an arrogant company that squandered its dominance in the US market (used to be the #1 import) through an utter refusal to adapt to this market. Based on their bad advertising, clumsy market strategy, and seeming inability to acknowledge that they've screwed up badly in NA (and they have--unless losing over $1700 per car per year is a success), I expect that this US sedan is going to be an enormous 'so-what', a magnificent failure, a screw-up on the order of the Tundra, but worse.

 

Why?

 

Well, what has VW done to suggest it will be otherwise?

 

What, in short, have they done RIGHT over the last 8 years?

 

I'm putting this on you, "DC": You tell me why you think VW will succeed. I've provided no end of reasons to anticipate failure.

 

What new leadership, what new marketing strategy, what new advertising campaign at VW suggests that they have the faintest whiff of a clue about what they're doing?

Edited May 15, 2010 by RichardJensen

[DC Car Examiner]

However bad you feel their marketing is, VW has somehow gotten a very strong reputation despite a history of reliability issues. Someone's doing something right.

 

I think the midsize sedan replacement, whether they call it Passat or something else, is a huge growth potential. They sell virtually no Passats right now because of ridiculous pricing, and that's not a car built in Mexico. Any decent sales represents major growth. They're not about to take out the Big Six family sedans (the sixth being Hyundai, not Chrysler, in case that's not clear), but they could easily see sales zoom if they make an attractive car that's not cramped and not too expensive.

 

And if they can resolve the gas mileage issue with the current Jetta and at least keep prices where they are (if not lower), those sales will also increase, though less dramatically. They sold 100k+ last year of a five-year-old, overpriced product -- no small feat.

 

Finally, they're brining in a low-cost subcompact Polo, which will give VW access to the bargain hunter for the first time in years.

 

Can they blow it? Sure. They can overprice their products, or make them lousy/not good enough. They've certainly done that plenty of times in the past. But it's too early to say that they definitely will blow it, which is what you're saying. I'm not saying VW is going to succeed; I'm just saying that they might. You're saying that they absolutely won't.

Edited May 15, 2010 by DC Car Examiner

[jpd80]

I think the midsize sedan replacement, whether they call it Passat or something else, is a huge growth potential. They sell virtually no Passats right now because of ridiculous pricing, and that's not a car built in Mexico. Any decent sales represents major growth. They're not about to take out the Big Six family sedans (the sixth being Hyundai, not Chrysler, in case that's not clear), but they could easily see sales zoom if they make an attractive car that's not cramped and not too expensive.

 

And if you look more closely at why VW has that ridiculous price on the Passat, you will see why VW isn't the company you perceive. While they are comfortable with European pricing and cost basis, they can't seem to find a lower cost base/structure or strategy for the Americas...

 

This is the case of a European company setting volume limits and daring to ask higher (in the USA) prices that are accepted in the rest of the world...

 

I think VW is happy with where volumes and pricing are for now and unless they decide to drop the price dramatically on the Passat replacement, things will stay pretty much the same..

Edited May 15, 2010 by jpd80

[DC Car Examiner]

And if you look more closely at why VW has that ridiculous price on the Passat, you will see why VW isn't the company you perceive. While they are comfortable with European pricing and cost basis, they can't seem to find a lower cost base/structure or strategy for the Americas...

 

This is the case of a European company setting volume limits and daring to ask higher (in the USA) prices that are accepted in the rest of the world...

 

I think VW is happy with where volumes and pricing are for now and unless they decide to drop the price dramatically on the Passat replacement, things will stay pretty much the same..

 

VW is not at all happy with volumes where they are, the subject of the (off-topic) discussion in this thread.

[jpd80]

VW is not at all happy with volumes where they are, the subject of the (off-topic) discussion in this thread.

I skipped through most of the pissing match and probably missed that bit.

Maybe VW will make a great Passat replacement but if they offer it at $27K, that won't help - not when you can get a CC for not much more. and I guess that's the rub for VW, do you price Passat at $22K and compete with more mainstream vehicles but lose $5,000/car or stick with lower volumes and get more profit per car...

[DC Car Examiner]

I skipped through most of the pissing match and probably missed that bit.

Maybe VW will make a great Passat replacement but if they offer it at $27K, that won't help - not when you can get a CC for not much more. and I guess that's the rub for VW, do you price Passat at $22K and compete with more mainstream vehicles but lose $5,000/car or stick with lower volumes and get more profit per car...

 

It seems that VW's strategy is to have the CC serve effectively as the Passat replacement. The two cars are already separated by only $500 or so. Their next midsize sedan will probably return to the Passat's original starting prices in the low $20ks, leaving more luxury and sportiness to the CC.

[jpd80]

It seems that VW's strategy is to have the CC serve effectively as the Passat replacement. The two cars are already separated by only $500 or so. Their next midsize sedan will probably return to the Passat's original starting prices in the low $20ks, leaving more luxury and sportiness to the CC.

That will win more sales because at the moment you have Jetta starting about $18K and then a huge gap to Passat and CC at $27-28K. So yeah, $22K sounds about right. All they need is a good reliable car...

[RichardJensen]

However bad you feel their marketing is, VW has somehow gotten a very strong reputation despite a history of reliability issues. Someone's doing something right.

VW's market share is significantly lower than it was 7 years ago, despite an increase in their product range.

 

That does not suggest that they have a 'strong reputation'.

 

Whatever you may say of their reputation, the numbers bear out one of the following two conclusions:

 

- their consideration rate is shrinking

 

- their rejection rate is increasing

 

NEITHER reality is good.

 

I think the midsize sedan replacement, whether they call it Passat or something else, is a huge growth potential.

What?

 

Where's the 'huge growth potential' in the most competitive segment in North America? Is this a market that is being underserved?

 

What is their value proposition?

 

Assuming that there's 'growth potential' in the most competitive sector in the market, what makes you think VW can tap it? They have ZERO experience in the segment. NONE. There's no institutional knowledge of how to make a good US family sedan. To assume that a company that fundamentally does not understand this market can execute a 180 degree turnaround in a short time frame (a year or two).............

 

they're brining in a low-cost subcompact Polo, which will give VW access to the bargain hunter

 

Yes. There's a lucrative market for a company with gigantic overhead to chase. The bargain hunters.

 

You're saying that they absolutely won't.

I'm saying there's no reason to expect success.

 

None.

 

Their track record over the past 7 years is one of non-stop investment in new product in this country and failure after failure after failure.

 

To argue that all that is about to change when -nothing- about how they do business has changed, is to akin to asserting that the onions in my refrigerator have turned into apricots.

[DC Car Examiner]

VW has good growth potential to take its midsize sedan sales back from almost zero now to some higher volume. Perhaps even the 100k annual sales they used to enjoy with the Passat (which would seem to counter your idea that Volkswagen can't make a popular midsize for the U.S.; the 1998-2005 model was very popular). And the sales collapse of the most recent Passat is itself fully responsible for the company's market share decline.

[Kev-Mo]

Seventh place: Ford Escape XLT

 

 

 

 

Continued at link: http://www.examiner.com/x-1017-Autos-Examiner~y2010m5d12-Comparison-review-2010-compact-SUVs-seventh-place

 

 

"The poorest of the small SUV's..." This should include any vehicle that can't find a better place for the spare tire than hanging off the back of the vehicle. If they can't get that right, how can they get anything right! How does Toyota (the probable winner of this so-called contest) get away with such sloppy engineering.

Comments DC???

[Kev-Mo]

Sixth place: 2010 Kia Sportage

 

 

 

 

Continued at link: http://www.examiner.com/x-1017-Autos-Examiner~y2010m5d14-Comparison-review-2010-compact-SUVs-sixth-place

 

 

Should be ranked last by its sour looks alone...What are you thinking DC??

[DC Car Examiner]

"The poorest of the small SUV's..." This should include any vehicle that can't find a better place for the spare tire than hanging off the back of the vehicle. If they can't get that right, how can they get anything right! How does Toyota (the probable winner of this so-called contest) get away with such sloppy engineering.

Comments DC???

 

Toyota made a tradeoff with the RAV4: more interior cargo space in exchange for the diminished practicality of the swing-out back hatch. I'm guessing this will be the last generation of RAV4 to do that, but it's not a fault so egregious that it should automatically disqualify a vehicle for everyone. For some, it no doubt will -- I was just the other day warning a city resident looking for a small SUV about how swing-out cargo doors can be problematic in tight quarters. But for others, it's just not that big of a deal.

[DC Car Examiner]

Should be ranked last by its sour looks alone...What are you thinking DC??

 

I guess I was thinking that your views on its looks are a factor of negligible consequence in the ranking.

 

And if I were to just go by looks, it would be the Equinox in last place anyway -- a car whose styling appeal has always eluded me. (The first-gen looked great.)

Edited May 16, 2010 by DC Car Examiner