My comparison: 2010 small SUVs

[akirby]

The Escape has a few more features, including SYNC. They're equipped as comparably as possible, so there is nothing near $3,500 worth of extra content. Neither has great materials quality or fit/finish; they're comparable. Resale value is equal per ALG.

 

 

 

There needs to be a yea or nay conclusion. That sort of review typically ends up saying what's good and what's bad yet concluding positively, under the theory that it's "arrogant" to say that a car isn't good.

 

 

 

Well, I give it a detailed analysis, and then explain why I picked what I did. There is just no other useful way to do it. To base a review only on "objective" numerical categories is unhelpful and often misleading; to use your 0-60 example, it rarely matters whether a car is a few tenths faster in a dead sprint if it feels slower.

 

What you mean is people WANT to hear winners and losers so they can celebrate if their favorite wins and bitch if their favorite loses.

 

These types of comparisons are inherently SUBjective but always imply OBjectiveness.

 

It would be more meaningful to show how the cars compared in a specific category like cargo handling, acceleration, etc. and let the reader decide which of those is more important.

 

But that wouldn't be nearly as exciting or controversial, would it?

[RichardJensen]

There needs to be a yea or nay conclusion. That sort of review typically ends up saying what's good and what's bad yet concluding positively, under the theory that it's "arrogant" to say that a car isn't good.

You're a jackass.

 

I'm not saying 'end the review positively', I'm saying ranking cars is asinine.

[FordBuyer]

What you mean is people WANT to hear winners and losers so they can celebrate if their favorite wins and bitch if their favorite loses.

 

These types of comparisons are inherently SUBjective but always imply OBjectiveness.

 

It would be more meaningful to show how the cars compared in a specific category like cargo handling, acceleration, etc. and let the reader decide which of those is more important.

 

But that wouldn't be nearly as exciting or controversial, would it?

 

I will take hard data over "feelings" any day. I see how auto reviewers use adjectives all the time and most of the time the adjectives really show their biases. For example, the 0-60 times are almost identical and one is "peppy" and the other "lethargic." Or common supplier builds virtually same dashboard for both and one looks "hard" and the other one "soft." And the way auto reviewers rate attributes is maddening. Seeing out of a vehicle should be very important as 95% of our driving cues come from our vision, and if our vision outward is compromised, we are not as safe. But for some reason many reviewers put this at bottom of list. The Escape by far has the best outward vision which should be at top of list of attributes. Add in Escapes boxy shape and you can put very bulky cargo in back without problems. Escape excels at outward vision and cargo room for the bulkiest shapes. Maybe that is why the Escape sells so well? It looks like a little bread truck. I hope the next Escape keeps its great vision and cargo room.

[FordBuyer]

You're a jackass.

 

I'm not saying 'end the review positively', I'm saying ranking cars is asinine.

 

 

I would agree. All the major manufacturers are building such great vehicles now that it's very difficult if not impossible to rank them. All have great safety features, all have very good to excellent quality, and all have great content and will last a long time. It's just annoying to me that DC actually rated an uncompetitive small SUV ahead of a moderately competitive small SUV. Midpack is not uncompetitive. The Sportage is not midpack. I believe the Escape got a 8.1 rating compared to every small SUV in segment, and the Sportage got a 7.1 average rating putting it near the bottom. I believe the highest average was around 9.1 and lowest around 6.4 by the Dodge Nitro. So Escape was average and Sportage below average. I agree with those ratings personally. I don't see why DC doesn't.

[twintornados]

.....I don't see why DC doesn't.

Because it is his column :shades:

[timmm55]

I would agree. All the major manufacturers are building such great vehicles now that it's very difficult if not impossible to rank them. All have great safety features, all have very good to excellent quality, and all have great content and will last a long time. It's just annoying to me that DC actually rated an uncompetitive small SUV ahead of a moderately competitive small SUV. Midpack is not uncompetitive. The Sportage is not midpack. I believe the Escape got a 8.1 rating compared to every small SUV in segment, and the Sportage got a 7.1 average rating putting it near the bottom. I believe the highest average was around 9.1 and lowest around 6.4 by the Dodge Nitro. So Escape was average and Sportage below average. I agree with those ratings personally. I don't see why DC doesn't.

 

 

Well expressed. That's why I posted that link. I don't think the Escape is state of the art, but I think it's does darnn well in it's segment.

[DC Car Examiner]

I would agree. All the major manufacturers are building such great vehicles now that it's very difficult if not impossible to rank them. All have great safety features, all have very good to excellent quality, and all have great content and will last a long time. It's just annoying to me that DC actually rated an uncompetitive small SUV ahead of a moderately competitive small SUV. Midpack is not uncompetitive. The Sportage is not midpack. I believe the Escape got a 8.1 rating compared to every small SUV in segment, and the Sportage got a 7.1 average rating putting it near the bottom. I believe the highest average was around 9.1 and lowest around 6.4 by the Dodge Nitro. So Escape was average and Sportage below average. I agree with those ratings personally. I don't see why DC doesn't.

 

If you drive the cars, you will see the ways in which many are much better than others. I have no idea what these numbers are that you're saying.

 

I will take hard data over "feelings" any day. I see how auto reviewers use adjectives all the time and most of the time the adjectives really show their biases. For example, the 0-60 times are almost identical and one is "peppy" and the other "lethargic." Or common supplier builds virtually same dashboard for both and one looks "hard" and the other one "soft." And the way auto reviewers rate attributes is maddening. Seeing out of a vehicle should be very important as 95% of our driving cues come from our vision, and if our vision outward is compromised, we are not as safe. But for some reason many reviewers put this at bottom of list. The Escape by far has the best outward vision which should be at top of list of attributes. Add in Escapes boxy shape and you can put very bulky cargo in back without problems. Escape excels at outward vision and cargo room for the bulkiest shapes. Maybe that is why the Escape sells so well? It looks like a little bread truck. I hope the next Escape keeps its great vision and cargo room.

 

Actually, it's the Subaru Forester that has the best visibility. I do agree that it's one of the Escape's best points as well.

 

But I totally disagree with your refusal to look at how a car feels. That's what people do who don't actually drive the cars. If one car has gearing that makes zip off the line, or one has a groaning engine note that gives it the impression of lethargy, or one is geared to be slow unless you've jammed your foot into the floor, those are the differences that would matter to an owner in real life, not a 0-60 time.

 

Another example of that would be decibel levels for quietness. They don't take into account the quality of the noise that you're hearing. If, hypothetically, a Mustang GT and Dodge Caliber 4-cylinder had the same decibel reading when you gun it, does that mean that they should get equal credit? Or shouldn't the Mustang get extra points for having an engine that you'd want to listen to?

[DC Car Examiner]

Returning for the final three after vacation delays:

 

 

Third place: Hyundai Tucson

 

 

Driving the 2010 Hyundai Tucson back to back with the sixth-place Kia Sportage illustrates how far the car has come – and where it has yet to improve.

 

The current Sportage is mechanically identical to the previous-generation Tucson, but the new Hyundai is in another league for its sporty handling, punchy yet quiet and fuel-efficient four-cylinder, top safety ratings, and stylish, high-quality interior.

 

But to make it the rest of the way to best-in-class, Hyundai would have needed to resolve some more of the issues that held back the Sportage...

 

Continued at link:

http://www.examiner.com/x-1017-Autos-Examiner~y2010m5d27-Comparison-review-2010-compact-SUVs-third-place

[DC Car Examiner]

Second place: Toyota RAV4

 

 

When the Autos Examiner last compared small SUVs last spring, the Toyota RAV4 came out on top. It cost a bit more than many of its competitors but, that review concluded, it was worth the extra money over the competition.

 

The RAV4 hasn't changed since last year, and neither has the SUV that swiped its top spot. But as demand for the vehicles shifted, their estimated transaction price difference nearly tripled, with the Toyota coming out nearly $3,000 more than the comparison's winner.

 

For many, the RAV4 will still be worth it...

 

Continued at link:

http://www.examiner.com/x-1017-Autos-Examiner~y2010m5d29-Comparison-review-2010-compact-SUVs-second-place

[FordBuyer]

Second place: Toyota RAV4

 

 

 

 

Continued at link:

http://www.examiner.com/x-1017-Autos-Examiner~y2010m5d29-Comparison-review-2010-compact-SUVs-second-place

 

Uh, is that a big, ol,' cumbersome swing away spare tire I see hanging off the rear tailgate of that Rav4? This isn't the 80's anymore. Have fun hanging a tailgate bike rack on that tailgate or doing much of anything without that dated, cumbersome device in your way. And a 4 speed automatic you say? That is class competitive? My DC, you need to take those rose colored glasses off. The Chevy Equinox is much more modern than that Rav4. No contest. I could be fricking blind and come up with better rankings.

[Anthony]

Uh, is that a big, ol,' cumbersome swing away spare tire I see hanging off the rear tailgate of that Rav4? This isn't the 80's anymore. Have fun hanging a tailgate bike rack on that tailgate or doing much of anything without that dated, cumbersome device in your way. And a 4 speed automatic you say? That is class competitive? My DC, you need to take those rose colored glasses off. The Chevy Equinox is much more modern than that Rav4. No contest. I could be fricking blind and come up with better rankings.

 

By all means, please drive them all and give us a nice review.

[tjl]

The Jetta has been popular for a long time and the Passat used to be. I'm not sure exactly what caused the Passat to suddenly drop off the sales charts to the point where VW almost tries to discourage people from buying them.

 

The Passat was not especially popular until the 1998 generation, when VW found that spending a little on a nicer interior resulted in the car being much more popular. Now, everyone has improved the interior look and feel so that it isn't really a VW exclusive any more.

[FordBuyer]

In my view, it's impossible to put any vehicle in any segment into a numerical ranking. The ranking has to be broader in order to be objective, at least a modicum of objectivity. By broader, I mean three categorical rankings: better then average, average, and below average. Most vehicles that are dated or had very mild MCE's that are not worth much are strong candidates for below average. Complete redesigns would get strong consideration for above average rating, and those with very effective, thorough updates working off already strong underpinnings would be considered also. In my world, using this method, the Equinox is above average, the Escape average, and the Sportage below average.

[DC Car Examiner]

In my view, it's impossible to put any vehicle in any segment into a numerical ranking. The ranking has to be broader in order to be objective, at least a modicum of objectivity. By broader, I mean three categorical rankings: better then average, average, and below average. Most vehicles that are dated or had very mild MCE's that are not worth much are strong candidates for below average. Complete redesigns would get strong consideration for above average rating, and those with very effective, thorough updates working off already strong underpinnings would be considered also. In my world, using this method, the Equinox is above average, the Escape average, and the Sportage below average.

 

It's silly to use how old a car is to determine how good it is. There are plenty of cars that were great from the start and remain great, and others that were always duds.

[DC Car Examiner]

And the long-awaited winner is...

 

http://www.examiner.com/x-1017-Autos-Examiner~y2010m6d6-Comparison-review-2010-compact-SUVs-first-place

[FordBuyer]

And the long-awaited winner is...

 

http://www.examiner.com/x-1017-Autos-Examiner~y2010m6d6-Comparison-review-2010-compact-SUVs-first-place

 

 

The only "rankings" that matter for May, 2010:

 

Compact Crossovers

Escape - 19,203

CR-V - 17,820

Equinox - 13,134

RAV4 - 13,102

Rogue - 8,789

Forester - 7,976

Terrain - 5,132

Tucson - 4,395

Mariner - 3,191

Patriot - 3,040

CX-7 - 2,513 (also reported under midsize below)

Compass - 2,373

Sportage - 2,293

Tiguan - 1,959

Element - 1,378

Grand Vitara - 379

 

You will notice that in these rankings, the Forester is midpack and the Sportage is down near bottom where it belongs. The Escape and Equinox are at the top. Sales and profits really do matter most.

[aneekr]

And the long-awaited winner is...

 

http://www.examiner.com/x-1017-Autos-Examiner~y2010m6d6-Comparison-review-2010-compact-SUVs-first-place

Nicely done conclusion to your comparison test.

 

The Forester's engine exhibits "too much vibration at idle"? Could you provide more specifics on this?

 

I acknowledge that the Subaru's non-turbo EJ25 engine isn't the most powerful or sophisticated in its class, but the flat four design is inherently better at suppressing vibration compared to an inline four.

 

I have driven Foresters (previous gen, 2007 MY), Imprezas and Legacys with this engine, and while at higher engine speeds it had a distinct sound that I didn't particularly like, it was impressively smooth. At idle there was about much vibration as from a dead walleye...

Edited June 8, 2010 by aneekr

[aneekr]

The only "rankings" that matter for May, 2010:

 

Compact Crossovers

Escape - 19,203

CR-V - 17,820

Equinox - 13,134

RAV4 - 13,102

Rogue - 8,789

Forester - 7,976

Terrain - 5,132

Tucson - 4,395

Mariner - 3,191

Patriot - 3,040

CX-7 - 2,513 (also reported under midsize below)

Compass - 2,373

Sportage - 2,293

Tiguan - 1,959

Element - 1,378

Grand Vitara - 379

 

You will notice that in these rankings, the Forester is midpack and the Sportage is down near bottom where it belongs. The Escape and Equinox are at the top. Sales and profits really do matter most.

Along with the Escape, seems like the CR-V (not Equinox) is the real winner in the sales race...

[DC Car Examiner]

The only "rankings" that matter for May, 2010:

 

You will notice that in these rankings, the Forester is midpack and the Sportage is down near bottom where it belongs. The Escape and Equinox are at the top. Sales and profits really do matter most.

 

A sales list says nothing about profits. I'll pass the message on to Ford that it doesn't matter whether the Fusion or Focus are any good because they don't sell anywhere near the level of Toyota or Honda.

[DC Car Examiner]

Nicely done conclusion to your comparison test.

 

The Forester's engine exhibits "too much vibration at idle"? Could you provide more specifics on this?

 

I acknowledge that the Subaru's non-turbo EJ25 engine isn't the most powerful or sophisticated in its class, but the flat four design is inherently better at suppressing vibration compared to an inline four.

 

I have driven Foresters (previous gen, 2007 MY), Imprezas and Legacys with this engine, and while at higher engine speeds it had a distinct sound that I didn't particularly like, it was impressively smooth. At idle there was about much vibration as from a dead walleye...

 

Maybe everyone else just does more to keep the vibration from making it into the cabin, but you feel the Forester's steering wheel moving as you sit still more than in most current cars.

[FordBuyer]

A sales list says nothing about profits. I'll pass the message on to Ford that it doesn't matter whether the Fusion or Focus are any good because they don't sell anywhere near the level of Toyota or Honda.

 

 

Uh, last I looked Fusion and Focus are both one of the best selling vehicles in their segment. Not everyone can be number one in sales. Ford couldn't sell 350,000 of them if they tried since both including the Escape are built at only ONE plant with defined capacity. And I doubt very much if Ford will ever open a second Fusion or Focus plant let alone a second Escape plant. Now with Focus going to MAP this November, maybe Ford could build 350,000 Focuses if needed on three shifts, but Fusion and Escape plants build other vehicles and Ford is building about as many as they can and selling them easily and in big numbers. Only a few vehicles are selling better than the Fusion or Focus, and Escape is either number one in sales every month or close to it. Customers know value when they see it and will part with their money for it. If not, they won't. Doesn't look like many buyers are paying good money for a Sportage.

[FordBuyer]

Maybe everyone else just does more to keep the vibration from making it into the cabin, but you feel the Forester's steering wheel moving as you sit still more than in most current cars.

 

Could be those slapping horizontal pistons in that Boxer motor that Subaru stubbornly keeps building. They do have blind loyalists though that keep buying that noisy engine you can hear coming down the road. Mostly educated, younger, white females who like boxy vehicles and engines. Subaru is a modern AMC.

[PREMiERdrum]

Could be those slapping horizontal pistons in that Boxer motor that Subaru stubbornly keeps building. They do have blind loyalists though that keep buying that noisy engine you can hear coming down the road. Mostly educated, younger, white females who like boxy vehicles and engines art teachers. Subaru is a modern AMC.

Fixed it for you :shades:

[Pioneer]

And I doubt very much if Ford will ever open a second Fusion or Focus plant let alone a second Escape plant.

 

The whole reason Ford is going to FLEX plants is to be able to adjust production capacity. When LAP and MAP are retooled, if it ever came down to it, you could theoretically build the max production at both plants of any C model vehicle. Fusion could easily be added to two other NA plants, namely AAI and OAC. If the numbers support it, you better believe Ford will do it.

 

Fusion and Escape plants build other vehicles

 

Escape plant only builds the Escape, Mariner, and Tribute. Tribute numbers are nominal and the Mariner is being discontinued.

[David The Bruce]

Could be those slapping horizontal pistons in that Boxer motor that Subaru stubbornly keeps building. They do have blind loyalists though that keep buying that noisy engine you can hear coming down the road. Mostly educated, younger, white females who like boxy vehicles and engines. Subaru is a modern AMC.

 

 

I disagree on the comparison of subaru to amc. Subaru puts a decent vehicle on the road. Solid all wheel drive, stands up well over time and miles.

Early versions of the forestor were noisy but more recent ones are much quieter.

In my opinion I wouldn't have the escape in this catagory.