My comparison: Nine compact crossovers

[DC Car Examiner]

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

Content included in the comparison includes:

-Short summary reviews of the nine cars in the slideshow as part of the introductory article

-Full reviews plus photo galleries of each car

-Summaries of how the different cars compare in different ways

-Summaries of how the different cars compare for different types of customer

[Chester]

You have the previous Subaru Forester specs for the interior measurements. The new one is most likely best in class at 34.4 cut ft. In the rear and 74.7 total cargo room.

 

Are you sure you tested the new model? I thought the interior was pretty nice to boot, as good as the Honda anyway.

[TBirdStangSkyliner]

I don't really get the burgeoning popularity of this class. To me, they seem sort of awful at nearly everything and not better than poor at anything in particular. They don't get good mileage which would help to make up for many of their short comings, except for terrible seats which seem to be class standard. They aren't very roomy. They arent luxurious and many (actually, all) owners I know are dissatisfied with their comfort on longer road trips (we all do lots of those out here in the west). They don't really tow. They aren't really for the off road. They don't handle as well as sport wagons which have better mileage and similar passenger and luggage capacity. They don't carry nearly as much as minivans which equal their mileage. They are just slightly less uncool than the minivan, and that is only due to a stigma which seems to be just as deserved for compact CUV's.

[MKII]

As to the many points TBirdStangSkyliner you make against this segment, for some reason this segment appears to be the hottest globally as far as growth.

[MKII]

DC you say the Escape's NHTSA rating is "middling" the Ford further earned middling four-star scores in NHTSA evaluations.

But when I looked up the Escape's NHTSA it reports 4 and 5 star ratings.

How is this "middling"?

4 & 5 according to NHTSA are the highest ratings.

Middling as far as understand the definition is mediocre or middle yes?

Middle rating would be 2 & 2.5 star rating, yes?

Edited July 15, 2013 by MKII

[Chester]

DC you say the Escape's NHTSA rating is "middling" the Ford further earned middling four-star scores in NHTSA evaluations.

But when I looked up the Escape's NHTSA it reports 4 and 5 star ratings.

How is this "middling"?

4 & 5 according to NHTSA are the highest ratings.

Middling as far as understand the definition is mediocre or middle yes?

Middle rating would be 2 & 2.5 star rating, yes?

 

I would have to argue that this article is middling at best or maybe brings up the rear. Lots of miss information throughout. Then a car like the Nissan is picked at 3, yet it finished in last place in most categories except price. Brady, you can do better than this.

[DC Car Examiner]

I don't really get the burgeoning popularity of this class. To me, they seem sort of awful at nearly everything and not better than poor at anything in particular. They don't get good mileage which would help to make up for many of their short comings, except for terrible seats which seem to be class standard. They aren't very roomy. They arent luxurious and many (actually, all) owners I know are dissatisfied with their comfort on longer road trips (we all do lots of those out here in the west). They don't really tow. They aren't really for the off road. They don't handle as well as sport wagons which have better mileage and similar passenger and luggage capacity. They don't carry nearly as much as minivans which equal their mileage. They are just slightly less uncool than the minivan, and that is only due to a stigma which seems to be just as deserved for compact CUV's.

 

The popularity of the class seems pretty clear to me. I think you must be thinking of full-size crossovers, as these are nothing like minivans in either price, size or fuel economy. They're like roomier economy cars with higher seating positions, slightly -- but not wildly -- higher prices, and reduced -- but not horrible -- fuel economy.

 

You have the previous Subaru Forester specs for the interior measurements. The new one is most likely best in class at 34.4 cut ft. In the rear and 74.7 total cargo room. Are you sure you tested the new model? I thought the interior was pretty nice to boot, as good as the Honda anyway.

 

 

I almost was convinced I had the wrong year and needed to make a lot of corrections, but no -- for some reason, Subaru reports a massive cargo volume hit from the moonroof, including behind the rear seat:

 

Cargo volume

34.4 cubic feet (31.5 cubic feet w/ moonroof)

Maximum cargo volume

74.7 cubic feet with rear seat lowered (68.5 cubic feet w/ moonroof)

http://www.subaru.com/vehicles/forester/models-specs.html (go to the 2.5i Premium for the specs listed back-to-back)

Since I was looking up specs of the 2.5i Limited when putting the comparison together, I didn't come across both figures because the moonroof is standard on the model. I'll go back and mention this curiosity in the article text.

 

DC you say the Escape's NHTSA rating is "middling" the Ford further earned middling four-star scores in NHTSA evaluations.

But when I looked up the Escape's NHTSA it reports 4 and 5 star ratings.

How is this "middling"?

4 & 5 according to NHTSA are the highest ratings.

Middling as far as understand the definition is mediocre or middle yes?

Middle rating would be 2 & 2.5 star rating, yes?

 

A four-star rating counts as middling because almost nothing scores worse. Out of the cars on the market, something with a four-star score is among the lowest. Literally just a handful of current models earn three-star scores, perhaps five or six.

 

I would have to argue that this article is middling at best or maybe brings up the rear. Lots of miss information throughout. Then a car like the Nissan is picked at 3, yet it finished in last place in most categories except price. Brady, you can do better than this.

 

If there are any errors, please share so they can be corrected. I think the Rogue review explains very thoroughly why it placed highly: Unlike any of the other inexpensive models in the class, it's at least competitive with the class leaders, just never better than them. It's not worst in class at one single thing.

Edited July 15, 2013 by DC Car Examiner

[JasonM]

 

 

A four-star rating counts as middling because almost nothing scores worse. Out of the cars on the market, something with a four-star score is among the lowest. Literally just a handful of current models earn three-star scores, perhaps five or six.

 

 

If there are any errors, please share so they can be corrected. I think the Rogue review explains very thoroughly why it placed highly: Unlike any of the other inexpensive models in the class, it's at least competitive with the class leaders, just never better than them. It's not worst in class at one single thing.

 

 

Does receiving a IIHS Top Safety pick count as "mediocre" and "middling" ?

 

You stated that the Escape and Rouge both have "medicore" crash test results, however, the Escape is rated a IIHS Top Safety pick and the Nissan Rouge is not.

[DC Car Examiner]

Does receiving a IIHS Top Safety pick count as "mediocre" and "middling" ?

 

You stated that the Escape and Rouge both have "medicore" crash test results, however, the Escape is rated a IIHS Top Safety pick and the Nissan Rouge is not.

 

Meanwhile, the Rogue passed the IIHS small-overlap crash test and the Escape did not.

[MKII]

2014 Subaru Forester

Key strengths:

- Top-notch crash-test scores.

 

NHTSA -has not tested this MY as far as the NHTSA website shows.

But the MY2013 Forester rating in only a mediocre 4 star

with all categories -frontal, side, & roll-over rated 4 star, whereas the Escape frontal 4 star rated, side 5 star & roll over 4 star

[DC Car Examiner]

2014 Subaru Forester

Key strengths:

- Top-notch crash-test scores.

 

NHTSA -has not tested this MY as far as the NHTSA website shows.

But the MY2013 Forester rating in only a mediocre 4 star

with all categories -frontal, side, & roll-over rated 4 star, whereas the Escape frontal 4 star rated, side 5 star & roll over 4 star

 

Right, the 2014 hasn't been tested by NHTSA. But based on the best-in-class IIHS score -- by a wide margin over everything but the Mitsubishi -- plus the five-star score of the redesigned Impreza on which the new Forester is based, I think it was a confident prediction.

[akirby]

Meanwhile, the Rogue passed the IIHS small-overlap crash test and the Escape did not.

 

So why is the Escape a top safety pick and the Rogue isn't?

 

This is why I hate the way IIHS adds these new tests and scores them.

[DC Car Examiner]

So why is the Escape a top safety pick and the Rogue isn't?

 

This is why I hate the way IIHS adds these new tests and scores them.

 

What the IIHS often does when adding a new test is to create two tiers of "Top Safety Pick" -- one for the cars that earned a top score in all of the previous tests, and another for those that earned top scores in the new and old tests. The idea is that it doesn't preclude most of the market from Top Safety Pick status while automakers catch up to the latest test standards.

 

The regular Top Safety Pick tests are moderate-overlap offset crash test, side crash test, roof strength evaluation, and head restraint evaluation. The Escape was rated Good in all of those; the Rogue was Good in all but the roof strength, where it was Acceptable, the second-highest score. But the Escape was Poor in the small-overlap frontal test, and the Rogue earned one position higher: Marginal.

 

Meanwhile, cars with Good scores in all the original tests and a Good or Acceptable rating in the new small-overlap test are Top Safety Pick+. In this class, that's just the Forester and Outlander Sport.

Edited July 15, 2013 by DC Car Examiner

[akirby]

What the IIHS often does when adding a new test is to create two tiers of "Top Safety Pick" -- one for the cars that earned a top score in all of the previous tests, and another for those that earned top scores in the new and old tests. The idea is that it doesn't preclude most of the market from Top Safety Pick status while automakers catch up to the latest test standards.

 

Which is the same thing you should be doing. It's not fair to ding the Escape for poor crash test scores and not ding the Rogue when one is a current top safety pick and the other isn't. It would have been sufficient to just report the scores and leave that out of the negative list.

[DC Car Examiner]

Which is the same thing you should be doing. It's not fair to ding the Escape for poor crash test scores and not ding the Rogue when one is a current top safety pick and the other isn't. It would have been sufficient to just report the scores and leave that out of the negative list.

 

Right, it would have been unfair to criticize one and not the other, so I criticized both. Both got four out of five stars in NHTSA testing when a lot of competitors get five, neither did very well on the small-overlap test (though the Nissan did better), and the Rogue was one mark behind the Escape on the roof strength test.

 

In fact, as you'll see on the ratings page, I gave the Escape the slight safety edge over the Rogue: http://www.examiner.com/article/comparison-review-nine-compact-crossover-suvs-ratings

[akirby]

I disagree with the use of "mediocre" crash test scores for both. The 2013 Escape got Good ratings on all tests including the head, neck and chest ratings for small overlap. It only got a Poor rating on leg/thigh in small overlap. That is nowhere near mediocre. All you have to do is say that it's a top safety pick but scored poor in the small overlap test for leg/thigh injuries.

 

It's like taking a class that all got A's on a test and saying that the ones who got 95% were "mediocre" because most of the class got 100s.

 

Then again I don't like the IIHS ratings anyway.

[RichardJensen]

Right, it would have been unfair to criticize one and not the other, so I criticized both.

 

Or you could, you know, just report the facts, explain the differences, and trust the intelligence of your readers.

[RichardJensen]

As an aside, this sort of "Let me make up your mind for you, obviously this is too complex for your simple intelligence to grasp" sort of critical analysis just gets under my skin and irritates me to no end.

 

Either write for entertainment---which is what most movie critics and 'name brand' auto 'journalists' do--or write carefully and let the reader draw his own conclusions. Every time I read some bloated article telling me what I should think about this thing, that piece of art, or some other brand of spray cheese, on the basis of the writer's summary of cherry picked facts filtered through the lens of his/her own acknowledged and unacknowledged biases, I get irritated. And that's what's going on here. "I have a computer, and the internet, and I drove all these cars, so somehow, I'm smarter than you and you should listen to me as I judge and rank these things."

 

Make it funny, or remove yourself from it entirely.

Edited July 15, 2013 by RichardJensen

[TBirdStangSkyliner]

The popularity of the class seems pretty clear to me. I think you must be thinking of full-size crossovers, as these are nothing like minivans in either price, size or fuel economy.

 

According to the EPA, the fuel economy of the Escape and The Honda Odyssey are nearly the same. In the real world many Escape testers and drivers are reporting 10-20% less than the EPA rating.

[RichardJensen]

Troll, troll, troll your boat: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33017&id=33224

[PREMiERdrum]

Troll, troll, troll your boat: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33017&id=33224

 

I was going to say...

My mother-in-law has a 2012 Odyssey and averages 17mpg.

[EBFlex]

Good review, very informative and nice selection of vehicles. Thanks for posting DC!

[TBirdStangSkyliner]

Troll, troll, troll your boat: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33017&id=33224

 

I'd say this is a bit more representative.

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33017&id=33224&id=32367&id=32368

[JasonM]

Meanwhile, the Rogue passed the IIHS small-overlap crash test and the Escape did not.

 

Seriously?

 

No, the Nissan Rogue did NOT "pass" the IIHS small-overlap crash test.

 

The Rouge received a "Marginal" (one above poor). The Rouge's Structure/Safety Cage received a Poor

[RichardJensen]

I'd say this is a bit more representative. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33017&id=33224&id=32367&id=32368

 

You left off the 5-speed Odyssey.

 

If you don't sales-weight the totals, you're looking at 25.33 combined for the Escape and 21.5 combined for the Odyssey. The difference? 3.83 MPG.

 

That makes the Odyssey's mileage 15% worse than the Escape. A difference which is *not* trivial, at least not if you're going to claim that a 10% deviation from EPA mileage is significant.

 

And the admittedly small sample size on the EPA site yields a 2% deviation from the EPA estimates, aggregate. The sole Odyssey reported is a whopping 31% off.

Edited July 16, 2013 by RichardJensen