My comparison: Nine compact crossovers

[twintornados]

..... or some other brand of spray cheese....

mmmmm, spray cheese......

[TBirdStangSkyliner]

The point is that this class of vehicles gets mileage not much better than vehicles way bigger, and even worse than some that are a class larger is valid. Mid size sedans get actually get considerably better mileage. Minivans are only slight worse in ratings in many scenarious. You have to order no AWD and the base engine in the CUV, and then stay off the highway or unloaded to get improvements large enough to really matter. Drive a base powertrain CUV at interstate highway speeds with three adults, or two adults and two kids, with luggage and see how this comparison goes. One of my very closest friends is a salesman at a Ford dealership. He says that they don't sell many FWD 1.6 EB's. we can play all sorts of numbers games and pick paramaters which favor our side of the arguement, but in the end, these just don't get that good of MPG for what they give up in size and capability. I picked the minivan because it is hugely more versatile and hugely more bigger. I could shoot other options that are closer to the FWD/base package that are well higher in MPG.

 

Is anyone really happy with the mileage they get in these? I just don't hear that, I don't read that.

[RichardJensen]

The point is that this class of vehicles gets mileage not much better than vehicles way bigger, and even worse than some that are a class larger is valid.

 

You have to use some fairly unconventional definitions of 'not much better' and 'even worse' to make that stick.

 

Besides, gas is a pretty small item on the monthly budget for most families with pre-teen kids.

Edited July 16, 2013 by RichardJensen

[akirby]

The point is that this class of vehicles gets mileage not much better than vehicles way bigger, and even worse than some that are a class larger is valid. Mid size sedans get actually get considerably better mileage. Minivans are only slight worse in ratings in many scenarious. You have to order no AWD and the base engine in the CUV, and then stay off the highway or unloaded to get improvements large enough to really matter. Drive a base powertrain CUV at interstate highway speeds with three adults, or two adults and two kids, with luggage and see how this comparison goes. One of my very closest friends is a salesman at a Ford dealership. He says that they don't sell many FWD 1.6 EB's. we can play all sorts of numbers games and pick paramaters which favor our side of the arguement, but in the end, these just don't get that good of MPG for what they give up in size and capability. I picked the minivan because it is hugely more versatile and hugely more bigger. I could shoot other options that are closer to the FWD/base package that are well higher in MPG. Is anyone really happy with the mileage they get in these? I just don't hear that, I don't read that.

 

I don't care about fuel mileage and I don't need more versatility or more cargo/passenger room. My wife won't drive a car or station wagon because it sits too low. We both abhor minivan styling. She likes crossovers and SUVs. When we had young kids we had Explorers and Expeditions. Now we have an Edge and love it but it's bigger than we need. The Escape/MKC would be perfect.

 

Your problem is you think everybody else thinks like you do regarding automobiles and you couldn't be more wrong.

[NickF1011]

It's all relative. The 21-ish MPG my Edge averages is absolutely heavenly compared to the 12-13 my Cobra gets.

[silvrsvt]

It's all relative. The 21-ish MPG my Edge averages is absolutely heavenly compared to the 12-13 my Cobra gets.

 

 

Lets not mention that after 25 MPG, you don't see nearly as big of a difference vs a car that gets 15 MPG in cost savings either!

[Deanh]

two things I dont really care about, mileage and safety, because in REALITY all segment participants are within a stones throw of each other, me, its about how well rounded the vehicles are, performance, handling and my big bug bear...structural integrity...go ahead slam the door on many of the Japanese entries, listen for ROAD NOISE, yet it rarely gets mentioned in any test....I see these cars at trade in time, and its ALWAYS interesting which are still holding together, and which are not...Ford does very well holding up, which is something I CANT say for many other brands...I wouldnt go so far as to say Ford is "Mercedes vault like"...but they have come leaps and bounds....

[aneekr]

My wife won't drive a car or station wagon because it sits too low. We both abhor minivan styling. She likes crossovers and SUVs. When we had young kids we had Explorers and Expeditions. Now we have an Edge and love it but it's bigger than we need. The Escape/MKC would be perfect.

 

Would a Honda CR-V, Subaru Forester, or perhaps an Acura RDX be even more "perfect", given your criteria?

Edited July 19, 2013 by aneekr

[aneekr]

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.

 

I think you're reading a bit much into the assessment DC Car Examiner provided us in this thread. By noting specific characteristics for consumers to evaluate on their own during test drives and car shopping "homework", reviews like this can be a useful supplement to others that focus on entertainment value or those that merely rehash press releases from automakers (incidentally, DC Car Examiner should be lauded for not engaging in the latter).

 

IMO, I doubt that a more humorous style of prose would significantly enhance the value of this review to consumers.

Edited July 19, 2013 by aneekr

[akirby]

Would a Honda CR-V, Subaru Forester, or perhaps an Acura RDX be even more "perfect", given your criteria?

 

Of course not. They're all ugly and they're not FoMoCo products.

[silvrsvt]

The Forester looks like a Station wagon on stilts...its ugly...I won't mention how Fugly the CR-V looks on its C-pillar either.

[RichardJensen]

I think you're reading a bit much into the assessment DC Car Examiner provided us in this thread. By noting specific characteristics for consumers to evaluate on their own during test drives and car shopping "homework", reviews like this can be a useful supplement to others that focus on entertainment value or those that merely rehash press releases from automakers (incidentally, DC Car Examiner should be lauded for not engaging in the latter).

 

IMO, I doubt that a more humorous style of prose would significantly enhance the value of this review to consumers.

 

There's a big difference between saying "I found the steering on the ______ to be more precise, but heavier than the ______"

 

And providing sloppy summaries of empirical data (____ is rated 'medium' for safety. ______ is rated 'good').

[akirby]

There's a big difference between saying "I found the steering on the ______ to be more precise, but heavier than the ______"

 

And providing sloppy summaries of empirical data (____ is rated 'medium' for safety. ______ is rated 'good').

 

Or worse - "mediocre" crash test scores based on one Poor rating for leg/thigh injury in one test (small offset) even while the IIHS itself gives it a top safety pick award.

[grbeck]

I see these cars at trade in time, and its ALWAYS interesting which are still holding together, and which are not...Ford does very well holding up, which is something I CANT say for many other brands...I wouldnt go so far as to say Ford is "Mercedes vault like"...but they have come leaps and bounds....

 

Inquiring minds want to know...which brands seem hold up the best? I'm also curious as to how Ford-Lincoln compares its GM and Chrysler competition.

[Deanh]

Or worse - "mediocre" crash test scores based on one Poor rating for leg/thigh injury in one test (small offset) even while the IIHS itself gives it a top safety pick award.

 

Inquiring minds want to know...which brands seem hold up the best? I'm also curious as to how Ford-Lincoln compares its GM and Chrysler competition.

the ones im referring too are turn ins from a huge Fleet provider called Wheels Inc, the cars come in with relatively high mileage, and Im happy to say, as far as domestics go Fords seem to be holding together the best, the Chevys turned in feel like they are falling apart, and ALL the dodges transmission levers feel like they are going to fall off...they all seem to be running fine, but structurally loosey goosey....its always interesting asking how individuals liked and what sort of luck they had, in that regard Chevy leapfrogs Dodge...that said, when they turn them in at our store, they are replacing them with fords, for a reason.....

[svtenthusiast]

How about a better fuel tracker site with more than one or two vehicles reporting real world mileage: http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/escape

 

Only .5 to 1 MPG better than the old generation Escape.

[RichardJensen]

but structurally loosey goosey....

 

I can't remember the last Ford product that had worse coachwork than its domestic peers.

[RichardJensen]

How about a better fuel tracker site

 

You mean a website that doesn't filter results by engine? Yeah, that site rocks.

[Deanh]

I can't remember the last Ford product that had worse coachwork than its domestic peers.

steer clear of Eqinox's.....

[grbeck]

I can't remember the last Ford product that had worse coachwork than its domestic peers.

 

A Ford from the late 1960s?

 

Even in the 1970s Fords tended to be better built than their domestic counterparts (resistance to rust, unfortunately, was another story).

Edited July 19, 2013 by grbeck

[Deanh]

The point is that this class of vehicles gets mileage not much better than vehicles way bigger, and even worse than some that are a class larger is valid. Mid size sedans get actually get considerably better mileage. Minivans are only slight worse in ratings in many scenarious. You have to order no AWD and the base engine in the CUV, and then stay off the highway or unloaded to get improvements large enough to really matter. Drive a base powertrain CUV at interstate highway speeds with three adults, or two adults and two kids, with luggage and see how this comparison goes. One of my very closest friends is a salesman at a Ford dealership. He says that they don't sell many FWD 1.6 EB's. we can play all sorts of numbers games and pick paramaters which favor our side of the arguement, but in the end, these just don't get that good of MPG for what they give up in size and capability. I picked the minivan because it is hugely more versatile and hugely more bigger. I could shoot other options that are closer to the FWD/base package that are well higher in MPG. Is anyone really happy with the mileage they get in these? I just don't hear that, I don't read that.

I have Superduty diesel pickup drivers getting 25 plus...hows that for a fly in the ointment?...

[TBirdStangSkyliner]

Yeh, I work with a guy who owns a SuperCrew EB who reports that he gets the same mileage as one of our fleet Equinoxes when carrying a couple of passengers over the same 185 miles of road. He claims his comparison is from refueling at end and comparing actual gallons used. Of course, you are paying about 20 pct more for diesel so you have to figure that in. For me, if I am going to have C class size, comfort, and limitations, I want mid to upper C class mileage.

 

These CUV's are fairly heavy, put more air under the body, have larger wheels and tires, and are powered by relatively small engines. Everything about that equation spells healthy reduction I mileage when driven outside of EPA loop parameters, such as moderate loads at 70 plus MPH speeds.

[RichardJensen]

Please describe the EPA tests.

[twmalonehunter]

Yeh, I work with a guy who owns a SuperCrew EB who reports that he gets the same mileage as one of our fleet Equinoxes when carrying a couple of passengers over the same 185 miles of road. He claims his comparison is from refueling at end and comparing actual gallons used. Of course, you are paying about 20 pct more for diesel so you have to figure that in. For me, if I am going to have C class size, comfort, and limitations, I want mid to upper C class mileage. These CUV's are fairly heavy, put more air under the body, have larger wheels and tires, and are powered by relatively small engines. Everything about that equation spells healthy reduction I mileage when driven outside of EPA loop parameters, such as moderate loads at 70 plus MPH speeds.

We get it..you don't like CUVs. Nevermind the fact almost every argument of yours against them has been shot down, you better get over it cause they're here to stay. Escapes are EVERYWHERE! Driving around my Pittsburgh territory the other day, I counted 19 of them in 3 hours. The class is that popular for many reasons, none of which you seem to be able to grasp.

 

And BTW, my sister, who traded a MB GLK for her 13 Escape, still loves it and constantly tells me its the best vehicle she has ever owned.

[aneekr]

the ones im referring too are turn ins from a huge Fleet provider called Wheels Inc.

 

Years ago, I worked for Wheels Inc., both at the corporate office in Chicagoland and at field sites such as those for fleet customers, remarketing/auction firms, dealerships doing courtesy deliveries, etc.

 

Small world!

Edited July 20, 2013 by aneekr