cr-v vs rav4 vs Santa fe

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Mitsubishi Outlander has 3rd row.

I think it's really hard to find a bad car company these days, but if there is one, it's Mitsubishi.

Their vehicles are always at the bottom in terms of any reliability lists, tend to test and drive terribly, and I think have been producing some very mediocre cars for the last decade (apart from the Evo). That and there's been a feeling in the industry that at some point they will go the way of Suzuki (ie, pull out of the NA market).

The Outlander is relatively popular, but I think it lags behind its competition. There are way too many good options out there to go with Mitsubishi right now.

[-TC-]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I think it's really hard to find a bad car company these days, but if there is one, it's Mitsubishi.

Their vehicles are always at the bottom in terms of any reliability lists, tend to test and drive terribly, and I think have been producing some very mediocre cars for the last decade (apart from the Evo). That and there's been a feeling in the industry that at some point they will go the way of Suzuki (ie, pull out of the NA market).

The Outlander is relatively popular, but I think it lags behind its competition. There are way too many good options out there to go with Mitsubishi right now.

I was given an RVC or whatever that monstrosity was called as a rental and made it around the block, then I took it back and told them I'd take anything else as long as it wasn't a mitsubishi or a chrysler product.

I ended up in a weirdly decontented Jetta....heated seats but no power windows, bizarre....

[automaton 3]

My sister and brother in law bought a Santa Fe Sport last year, and they love it so far.

With respect to the RAV4, it apparently did not score well on a crash test last year and Consumer Reports dropped it from their recommended list. The RAV4 was a new model last year, so not sure if the crash test results would be similar for a 2011 or not.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

Does anyone know if any of these CUV/Crossovers(Station Wagons) are able to fit 3 child car seats across? The 2012 Rav4 has a third row, do any other ones?

Depends on the Car seat. Most cars can fit 3 sunshine radians across the back. It reall depends on forward or rear facing and if the seats are high or low. If you have 3 Britaxs could luck fitting them across in a suburban. Really you need to take the car seats you plan on using when you test drive.

If you are looking at putting a seat in the 3rd row make sure you install the seat in the second row and then try to move the seat forward to access the 3rd row. Some cars it easy, some cars its not possible.

[GGG]

http://www.kbb.com/car-reviews-and-n...13/2000009033/

Lowest cost of ownersip by car category. No Toyotas, 1 Honda Hybrid, Several Hyundai's

[browna]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

I was at the Hyundai dealership last night.

The Santa Fe XL has a third row of seats, the Santa Fe Sport does not.

They are the same vehicle from the second row forward, but the XL is also 8" longer.

I've got my own question for the CP vehicle brain trust:

I've looked at the Ford Explorer, Nissan Pathfinder and Santa Fe XL so far. Santa Fe is definitely the best at the moment (haven't driven any of them yet, this is just from looks/features/value point of view).

I am debating whether I need 5,000 lbs of towing or if I could get away with 3,500 lbs.

My boat/trailer/motor totals 2,120 lbs. Figure another 300 lbs for gear and I'm around 2,500 lbs.

I think that would be fine 3 people and gear for the weekend to someplace near Calgary, but I am concerned it would be too much when I do my annual 10 day trip to Northern Saskatchewan. I'd likely have a ton of beer and food with me on that trip, increasing the weight substantially.

Does towing capacity get reduced by the weight I'm carrying inside the vehicle? I've never really thought about it, as I currently tow with a Tundra (which doesn't even notice the weight of the boat).

Am I being overly cautious in wanting 5,000 lbs of towing capacity? It would greatly increase my options if I could drop that to 3,500.....

Lose some weight!

Long story short, more or less the answer is yes as far as towing capacity including weight of the vehicle, occupants and cargo. Look up Gvwr and Gcwr.

For a once a year trip on flatlands to Saskabush, 3500 should be fine.

But for the price of new Xl, lots of year or two old options for cheaper, that may have a warranty still, depending on what you're looking for as far as size and other features. (ie Traverse if interior room, 3 rows plus can tow 5000).

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

Does anyone know if any of these CUV/Crossovers(Station Wagons) are able to fit 3 child car seats across? The 2012 Rav4 has a third row, do any other ones?

2013 Nissan Mallfinder...err Pathfinder.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by -TC-

I was given an RVC or whatever that monstrosity was called as a rental and made it around the block, then I took it back and told them I'd take anything else as long as it wasn't a mitsubishi or a chrysler product.

I ended up in a weirdly decontented Jetta....heated seats but no power windows, bizarre....

LOL.

Weird Frikkin Germans.

[pylon]

Anyone bashing Hyundais really needs to go take a closer look. I have seen side by sides with Honda and Toyota product, and Hyundai absolute decimate them now for content and build quality. I have a friend that works at a local Hyundai store, and he will pull out 1 and 2 year old used Toyotas and Hondas on his lot, and use them to sell his Hyundais. I don't necessarily agree with their flavour of the week design language, but Hyundai is no longer a bottom run manufacturer. In fact I would put them ahead of both Hinda and Toyota for fit and finish. On par with Toyota for reliability, and just marginally behind Honda for reliability.

If the general public knew the shenanigans Toyota pulled off to hide defects in their cars the last decade, it would blow your mind. They were performing recalls under the radar, without the customers knowledge, during routine service appointments. Major league stuff that involved a slugging issue that was causing engine seizures. They were forced to go public after a class action lawsuit affecting over 1 MILLION cars. Top quality right there. Toyota's are junk in my eyes now.

Korea is no longer this crapola manufactuting hub it once was. Look at Samsung for gods sake. That used to be the poor mans SONY. Now, they make some of, if not the worlds best smartphones and televisions. In fact when it comes to displays and phones, SONY is the poor mans Samsung. The exact same thing is starting to happen with cars.

I am a German car fanboy for sure. But I would drive a Hyundai, in heart beat, before a Honda or Toyota. They still have some passion in their brand, unlike Toyota and Honda, which have become the Maytag of cars. This boring, soulless, appliance to get from point A to B. The best analogy I ever heard about Toyota, came from a big shot in the Toyota world. "Toyotas are for people that hate cars." And you can't disagree, when you look at how flaccid and dull their product is.

My vote is with the Hyundai.

[-TC-]

The truth is, it's difficult to buy a bad car these days...you can buy a Mitsu or a Chrysler and then shoot yourself, but, the reality is autos these days are all pretty good.

There are some that are 'better' than others but, often, you are splitting hairs and it's subjective.

I know what I like, what I don't, and what I can't live without. That drives my buying decision; I like sedans, I don't like trucks, I'm very fussy about interior appointments, fit, finish, panel fit, paint and stuff like that....that's why I buy Japanese, it suits me personally. Even if it doesn't suit the dude next door with the Ford SUV....

When people ask me for advice, I encourage them to go drive a bunch of stuff with an open mind and then start to narrow down what they like, don't and have to have...and what fits financially. I know many people who have over-bought (or leased) and then haven't been able to customize, maintain or repair the car.

My advice: drive everything in your specific category, buy what you can afford to own, and make sure you don't let the dealer sell you silly crap you don't need.

If the OP gets a Hyundai, a Toyota or a Honda, he's probably going to be happy...

But please, let us continue to debate. I love talking about cars

[btimbit]

I was thinking that the other day as well, about there being no bad cars on the market today. I swear, it was no more than 5 seconds later than I saw both a Mitsubishi Outlander and a Lexus IS250. Just horrible vehicles.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I was thinking that the other day as well, about there being no bad cars on the market today. I swear, it was no more than 5 seconds later than I saw both a Mitsubishi Outlander and a Lexus IS250. Just horrible vehicles.

The Outlander is a very competent CUV. It's one of the few CUV's that still offers a V6, has fully lockable AWD system that is as good as any in the segment and it's reliable. Mitsubishi has a bad stigma about them for some reason but their cars are generally competent and are no worse than an equivalent Nissan or Mazda.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The Outlander is a very competent CUV. It's one of the few CUV's that still offers a V6, has fully lockable AWD system that is as good as any in the segment and it's reliable. Mitsubishi has a bad stigma about them for some reason but their cars are generally competent and are no worse than an equivalent Nissan or Mazda.

I like that it's a small SUV that seats seven, but other than that it's below average at best, especially considering it's in the same class as the Rav4, CR-V, Escape, Journey, Equinox, etc. All much better, except maybe the RAV4 which I thought was also pretty poor.

I see a lot of people mention its available V6 as a plus, but imo that's only still available because the 4cyl option in it is as underpowered an about as unrefined as you can get.

You're right that it's competent and that there's nothing outright wrong with it, but in my opinion when almost every direct competitor is better, especially in such a popular segment of the market, just being competent or average isn't good enough, and qualifies it as a bad car in my books

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The Outlander is a very competent CUV. It's one of the few CUV's that still offers a V6, has fully lockable AWD system that is as good as any in the segment and it's reliable. Mitsubishi has a bad stigma about them for some reason but their cars are generally competent and are no worse than an equivalent Nissan or Mazda.

I would definitely beg to differ on that point. I had a chance to drive my cousins Outlander for a few days, and I absolutely hated it. It was heavy, sluggish, had a loud unrefined engine, and the interior felt like it was put together from a Walmart parts bin. It definitely came across as a "quantity over quality" type of vehicle.

My MIL's Nissan Murano might not be any more interesting, but it's light years ahead in terms of driving refinement and interior quality. I haven't driven a Mazda crossover, but knowing them, I would think the driving experience is much more engaging.

If you like it, thats awesome, but personally I think it's a bad vehicle in a very competitive segment.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I would definitely beg to differ on that point. I had a chance to drive my cousins Outlander for a few days, and I absolutely hated it. It was heavy, sluggish, had a loud unrefined engine, and the interior felt like it was put together from a Walmart parts bin. It definitely came across as a "quantity over quality" type of vehicle.

My MIL's Nissan Murano might not be any more interesting, but it's light years ahead in terms of driving refinement and interior quality. I haven't driven a Mazda crossover, but knowing them, I would think the driving experience is much more engaging.

If you like it, thats awesome, but personally I think it's a bad vehicle in a very competitive segment.

The Outlander (starts @ $24k) and Murano (starts @ $34K) are also not in the same price range or target market. I would argue the Rogue is a better vehicle to compare the outlander.

Also, sample size of one, your opinion is not statistically significant.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

The Outlander (starts @ $24k) and Murano (starts @ $34K) are also not in the same price range or target market. I would argue the Rogue is a better vehicle to compare the outlander.

Also, sample size of one, your opinion is not statistically significant.

Good point about the price. Funnily enough my cousin had a Rogue before the Outlander. Still a lot nicer and more refined to drive in my opinion.

And yeah, my opinion is anecdotal, but read any reviews about Mitsubishi, and it won't be much different. The company has turned into a bit of a sad joke these days. They used to make some pretty good cars (good old 90s Eclipse!), but have been wallowing for years now.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I like that it's a small SUV that seats seven, but other than that it's below average at best, especially considering it's in the same class as the Rav4, CR-V, Escape, Journey, Equinox, etc. All much better, except maybe the RAV4 which I thought was also pretty poor.

I see a lot of people mention its available V6 as a plus, but imo that's only still available because the 4cyl option in it is asunderpowered an about as unrefined as you can get.

You're right that it's competent and that there's nothing outright wrong with it, but in my opinion when almost every direct competitor is better, especially in such a popular segment of the market, just being competent or average isn't good enough, and qualifies it as a bad car in my books

It bugs me that more of those models don't have a 7 seat option. Now that the Rav-4 doesn't have it anymore you are down to the Journey and Outlander in the Small SUV market that seat 7. Or you have to go do a lower clearance Mazda 5 or Kia Rondo. If they would just put jump seats in the back of the escape I would buy one in a heart beat.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Good point about the price. Funnily enough my cousin had a Rogue before the Outlander. Still a lot nicer and more refined to drive in my opinion.

And yeah, my opinion is anecdotal, but read any reviews about Mitsubishi, and it won't be much different. The company has turned into a bit of a sad joke these days. They used to make some pretty good cars (good old 90s Eclipse!), but have been wallowing for years now.

Oh isn't that handy.........

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by GGG

It bugs me that more of those models don't have a 7 seat option. Now that the Rav-4 doesn't have it anymore you are down to the Journey and Outlander in the Small SUV market that seat 7. Or you have to go do a lower clearance Mazda 5 or Kia Rondo. If they would just put jump seats in the back of the escape I would buy one in a heart beat.

But what's the point of throwing seven seats in a small SUV? Even in my friend's Rondo, there is a third row, but it's completely useless. I wouldn't ever let my kids sit in the back of that thing. They'd be dead in an accident. If you need seating for seven and care about the comfort of your family, get a Sienna, Odyssey or Caravan. They are actually comfortable for every occupant. Shoehorning a third row into a small vehicle may be a selling feature, but living with it is an entirely different story.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Sliver

But what's the point of throwing seven seats in a small SUV? Even in my friend's Rondo, there is a third row, but it's completely useless. I wouldn't ever let my kids sit in the back of that thing. They'd be dead in an accident. If you need seating for seven and care about the comfort of your family, get a Sienna, Odyssey or Caravan. They are actually comfortable for every occupant. Shoehorning a third row into a small vehicle may be a selling feature, but living with it is an entirely different story.

Agreed. Having a third row in a small SUV is the equivalent of having rear seats in a sports car. Sure, they're there, but nobody older than 5 is going to fit, they're just eating into cargo space.

Nothing wrong with needing a third row, just means you need a bigger vehicle.