Consumer Reports reviews small SUVs: Liberty, Sorento, Outlander, Rogue, Forester

[ifcar]

For its August issue, CR reviewed a selection of small SUVs that it hadn't already tested recently.

Rankings of all current auto-trans small SUVs tested by CR: (models tested this month in italics and recommended models (models that tested well and have reliability predicted at average or above) in bold. All are automatic-transmission 4WD or AWD versions)

EXCELLENT:
1. Subaru Forester 2.5XT Limited: 87 points ($28,860)
2. Toyota RAV4 Limited 3.5: 83 points ($30,328)
3. Subaru Forester 2.5X: 82 points ($22,040)
4. Hyundai Santa Fe Limited 3.3: 80 points ($30,745)

VERY GOOD:
5. Toyota RAV4 Base 2.4: 77 points ($23,163)
6. Honda CR-V EX: 74 points ($24,645)
7. Mitsubishi Outlander LS 2.4: 73 points ($22,820)
8. Nissan Rogue SL: 73 points ($25,850)
9. Mitsubishi Outlander XLS 3.0: 70 points ($30,615)
10. Hyundai Tucson SE 2.7: 67 points ($22,610)
11. Suzuki XL-7 Luxury: 65 points ($29,284)
12. Kia Sportage EX 2.7: 61 points ($23,565)

GOOD:
13. Nissan Xterra S: 59 points ($28,000)
14. Kia Sorento LX 3.3: 58 points ($25,070)
15. Honda Element EX: 58 points ($23,705)
16. Suzuki Grand Vitara Premium: 57 points ($22,894)
17. Saturn Vue XR: 57 points ($27,970)
18. Chevrolet Equinox LT: 54 points ($27,740)
19. Jeep Compass Sport: 51 points ($21,660)
20. Ford Escape XLT 3.0: 49 points ($26,565)
21. Jeep Patriot Limited: 42 points ($26,045)

FAIR:
22. Dodge Nitro SLT 3.7: 33 points ($28,875)
23. Jeep Liberty Sport: 27 points ($26,060)


Specific details and ratings of the SUVs in this month's report:

Subaru Forester:
Highs: Acceleration (XT), fuel economy (X), ride, handling, rear seat, visibility, controls, access, driving position, crash-test results.
Lows: Premium fuel (XT), noisy auto climate control (XT).
Acceleration:
X: 3/5 (10.4 seconds to 60)
XT: 5/5 (7.2 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 4/5
Routine Handling: 4/5
Emergency Handling: 3/5 (avoidance maneuver max speed: 50.5 mph X, 52.0 mph XT)
Braking: 4/5 (135 feet from 60 dry, 153 feet from 60 wet)
Headlights: 3/5
Ride: 4/5
Noise: 4/5
Driving Position: 4/5 X, 5/5 XT
Front Seat Comfort: 4/5
Front Access: 4/5
Rear Seat Comfort: 4/5
Rear Access: 4/5
Controls and Displays: 5/5
Interior fit and finish: 4/5
Cargo area: 3/5
Fuel Economy:
X: 3/5 (22 mpg)
XT: 2/5 (20 mpg)
Reliability: 4/5

Mitsubishi Outlander:
Highs: Handling, fuel economy, transmission, rear seat, cargo room, low cargo lift-over.
Lows: Initial acceleration takeoff, road noise, fit and finish.
Acceleration: 3/5 (10.1 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 5/5
Routine Handling: 4/5
Emergency Handling: 3/5 (avoidance maneuver max speed: 51.0 mph)
Braking: 4/5 (137 feet from 60 dry, 148 feet from 60 wet)
Headlights: 3/5
Ride: 4/5
Noise: 4/5
Driving Position: 4/5
Front Seat Comfort: 4/5
Front Access: 4/5
Rear Seat Comfort: 4/5
Rear Access: 4/5
Controls and Displays: 4/5
Interior fit and finish: 3/5
Cargo area: 3/5
Fuel Economy: 3/5 (22 mpg)
Reliability: 5/5

Nissan Rogue:
Highs: Fuel economy, compact dimensions, transmission, secure handling, controls, rear seat.
Lows: Rear visibility, modest cargo area.
Acceleration: 4/5 (8.9 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 5/5
Routine Handling: 4/5
Emergency Handling: 4/5 (avoidance maneuver max speed: 52.0 mph)
Braking: 4/5 (137 feet from 60 dry, 143 feet from 60 wet)
Headlights: 3/5
Ride: 4/5
Noise: 4/5
Driving Position: 3/5
Front Seat Comfort: 4/5
Front Access: 4/5
Rear Seat Comfort: 4/5
Rear Access: 4/5
Controls and Displays: 5/5
Interior fit and finish: 4/5
Cargo area: 1/5
Fuel Economy: 3/5 (22 mpg)
Reliability: Unknown

Kia Sorento:
Highs: Controls, transmission, off-road capability, long warranty.
Lows: Ride, lacks agility, fuel economy, reliability, no stability control in 4WD mode.
Acceleration: 4/5 (8.0 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 5/5
Routine Handling: 3/5
Emergency Handling: 3/5 (avoidance maneuver max speed: 50.5 mph)
Braking: 4/5 (138 feet from 60 dry, 141 feet from 60 wet)
Headlights: 3/5
Ride: 3/5
Noise: 4/5
Driving Position: 4/5
Front Seat Comfort: 4/5
Front Access: 4/5
Rear Seat Comfort: 4/5
Rear Access: 4/5
Controls and Displays: 5/5
Interior fit and finish: 4/5
Cargo area: 3/5
Fuel Economy: 1/5 (17 mpg)
Reliability: 2/5

Jeep Liberty:
Highs: Off-road ability.
Lows: Fuel economy, lack of agility, unsettled ride, driving position, front seat comfort, fit and finish, noise, braking.
Acceleration: 4/5 (9.2 seconds to 60)
Transmission: 4/5
Routine Handling: 2/5
Emergency Handling: 2/5 (avoidance maneuver max speed: 48.5 mph)
Braking: 3/5 (150 feet from 60 dry, 155 feet from 60 wet)
Headlights: 3/5
Ride: 3/5
Noise: 3/5
Driving Position: 2/5
Front Seat Comfort: 2/5
Front Access: 3/5
Rear Seat Comfort: 3/5
Rear Access: 4/5
Controls and Displays: 4/5
Interior fit and finish: 2/5
Cargo area: 3/5
Fuel Economy: 1/5 (16 mpg)
Reliability: Unknown


And, as always, ask if you want more.

[Old Dood]

My sister has a 07 RAV4 Limited. (Might be the 08...I can't remember)
It is a nice little SUV.
The Ride is better then I would have expected and has great pick up with the 3.5L engine.
Decent gas mileage. The 9 speaker JBL system sounds fantastic.

This size SUV is what I would like to see with a Hybrid engine.
You do not lose that much space if any at all with the batteries in these.

[logansowner]

I'm sure the Liberty isn't a great vehicle, but what a bunch of BS. 27/100...bull****ingcrap.

[Dana_15]

The Forester is a decent vehicle, but damn they are ugly

[Vladimir1978]

Originally Posted by Dana_15

The Forester is a decent vehicle, but damn they are ugly

Not at all anymore. It's actually quite handsome.

[PMC the 1st]

Consumer Reports reviews small SUVs: Liberty, Sorento, Outlander, Rogue, Forester.

I've been waiting almost two months for these five turds?!
BTW, does anyone know what it means to be "rick-rolled"? Just asking...

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by PMC the 1st

BTW, does anyone know what it means to be "rick-rolled"? Just asking...

Hee hee hee. You'll find out soon enough.

By the way, this video's interesting. It's the actual test from CR...they did so many stupid things, and the comments about the Equinox/VUE are horrible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Hee hee hee. You'll find out soon enough.

By the way, this video's interesting. It's the actual test from CR...they did so many stupid things, and the comments about the Equinox/VUE are horrible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

Ahahaha...I guess he wonders why his last CR thread was closed.

Just Google it PMC.

Vue got 57? Just a few points north of the 4 year old Nox? Im not understanding. Outside of its weight, its one of the best looking and driving SUV's out on the market.
The Forester is getting tons of great reviews though.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by Vladimir1978

Not at all anymore. It's actually quite handsome.

The old ones were hideous, but I rather like the new one. Much, much better.

[F14CRAZY]

Consumer Reports sucks but at least a Toyota isn't at the top, so settle down PMC

I'm still distressed about the lack of an available manual trans on the XT

[PMC the 1st]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Ahahaha...I guess he wonders why his last CR thread was closed.

Absolutely not. The thread served out its purpose....

Consumer Reports gave the excellent and new Saturn Vue only 57? Just a couple more points more than an old Equinox? And it's doing far worse than the ugly, utilitarian, cramped, buzzy and bumpy Japanese competition? Outside of its weight, the Saturn is one of the best looking and driving SUV's out on the market. Im not understanding!!!

Lol...

[ifcar]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Ahahaha...I guess he wonders why his last CR thread was closed.

Just Google it PMC.

Vue got 57? Just a few points north of the 4 year old Nox? Im not understanding. Outside of its weight, its one of the best looking and driving SUV's out on the market.
The Forester is getting tons of great reviews though.

"The redesigned Saturn Vue is a big improvement over the model it replaces, with more agile handling; a quiet, pleasant ride; and standard stability control. Inside the cabin, higher quality interior materials are used, and levels of fit and finish are much improved, but the front seats are uncomfortable and lack adequate support. The 3.6-liter V6 engine in our tested XR model is smooth and refined, and provides strong acceleration. But the Vue's fuel economy is among the worst in this competitive segment. Long stopping distances also cost the Vue points."

[Butz]

A Hyundai and a KIA higher ranked than a Saturn, Chevrolet, Ford and Jeep!
How did we come to this?

[PMC the 1st]

Originally Posted by ifcar

"The redesigned Saturn Vue is a big improvement over the model it replaces, with more agile handling; a quiet, pleasant ride; and standard stability control. Inside the cabin, higher quality interior materials are used, and levels of fit and finish are much improved, but the front seats are uncomfortable and lack adequate support. The 3.6-liter V6 engine in our tested XR model is smooth and refined, and provides strong acceleration. But the Vue's fuel economy is among the worst in this competitive segment. Long stopping distances also cost the Vue points."

...But the Honda Pilot, also having among the worst fuel economy in its class, was rated among the highest-rated by CR. Why does CR care about the fuel economy of domestic-nameplate cars, but completely ignores the gas consumption of Toyota and Honda models? Could it be that CR is biased against the domestics?

2008 Subaru Forester AWD
New EPA MPG
18 City
20 Combined
23 Hwy

2008 Honda CR-V 2WD New EPA MPG
Regular Gasoline
20 City
23 Combined
27 Hwy

2008 Saturn Vue FWD
New EPA MPG
Regular Gasoline
19 City
22 Combined
26 Hwy

2008 Toyota RAV4 2WD
New EPA MPG
21 City
24 Combined
27 Hwy

2008 Mitsubishi Outlander 2WD
New EPA MPG
20 City
22 Combined
25 Hwy

Why is it that the Saturn gets penalised for fuel economy (so much so, in fact, that it's among the worst vehicles CR has tested in this class) even though its fuel economy is only slightly less than the fuel economy leaders? Why doesn't the Subaru get penalised for fuel economy that's much worse than the Saturn's? Why does the Mitsubishi Outlander get a "high" for fuel economy when its mileage is no better than the Saturn Vue's?
Saying, "Umm, well... Because CR tests their own cars and CR doesn't go by the EPA's numbers and it just so happens that domestics always score alot lower in our tests than they do in the EPA's tests..." won't work, because it's just a tired, old, dead excuse meant to fool those who refuse to do their due diligence ("research") on these cars.
CR knows people don't do their research. That's how CR knows they can get away with this.

If anyone ever wanted to know why GM has problems, this is it. Consumer Reports is GM's problem.

[ifcar]

You continue to say the Pilot gets among the worst fuel economy of midsize SUVs, while it is among the best even by EPA testing.

Furthermore, the EPA numbers you're providing here don't correlate to the cars CR tested.

2009 Subaru Forester X:
20/26, 22 (CR mileage: 22)

2009 Subaru Forester XT (turbo):
19/24, 21 (CR mileage: 20)

2008 Honda CR-V AWD:
20/26, 22 (CR mileage: 21)

2008 Mitsubishi Outlander 4-cylinder AWD:
20/25, 22 (CR mileage: 22)

2008 Mitsubishi Outlander V6 AWD:
17/24, 20 (CR mileage: 19)

2008 Toyota RAV4 4-cylinder AWD:
20/25, 22 (CR mileage: 23)

2008 Toyota RAV4 V6 AWD:
19/26, 21 (CR mileage: 22)

2008 Saturn VUE XR 3.6 AWD:
16/22, 18 (CR mileage: 17)


In each case, the CR number is within 1 mpg of the EPA, and by either standard, the Vue's is easily the lowest.