[ifcar]

Some of you may remember the most recent IFCAR comparison that I posted here (economy sedans), and here is an examination of small SUVs:

http://ifcar.net/reviews.comparisons.smallsuvs.htm

The comparison itself should be complete, let me know if you find errors either in content or with the site. If you see dead or misdirected links, formatting or spelling errors, or inaccurate statements, please let me know immediately. The web site as a whole is in the middle of a half-completed redesign, and some information on other pages may be out of date.

If you have questions, please ask. If you disagree with anything, please bring it up for an INTELLIGENT debate (IE not "Well, I thought this should have been in first place, so you're wrong" or "this is unusual, so it's wrong", and please, no personal insults). The ranking order isn't everything, please read the explanations (the first and last paragraphs of each review page) if you feel the need to say anything pertinent.

I'd also like to call attention to the fact that this is a comparison intended for people who use SUVs as substitutes for cars rather than as trucks, which tends to favor car-based SUVs. As explained in the comparison text: "That does not mean that one type is better or worse than another; this comparison is just ranking them solely on how they perform on the road."

If this is the first time you've come across an IFCAR comparison, you can check out the others http://ifcar.net/.

That should cover everything, so enjoy!

 

[King Riffle]

16th place should read "Jeep Patriot" not "Liberty"

Didn't notice any other errors. Good review, as usual.

 

[ifcar]

16th place should read "Jeep Patriot" not "Liberty"

Didn't notice any other errors. Good review, as usual.

Fixed. Thanks.

 

[montrealvue]

Oddly enough I agree with almost all of it except for the top spot. CR-V has never been one of my faves and I would give the top spot to the Santa Fe then the Forester. I've always found the CR-V to be noisy on the road and has a harsh ride. I guess if you factor in reliability and resale it deserves to be up there (maybe 3rd place?).

 

[member12]

I wouldn't have ranked the Sportage, or Grand Vitara as high as they were.

I'd also put the Subaru, Toyota, and Saturn ahead of the Hyundai Santa Fe- which is not a bad car by any means....but there are much better choices now.


The Jeep Patriot and Compass are garbage...but I don't know much about the Liberty. I know that Jeep claims that the Liberty has some off road capability, which should be taken into account for your comparison- it will get worse gas mileage and rougher ride/handling but it can handle some moderate off roading. The Sorrento is in the same boat.

Your rating system is also confusing. I think you should divide the categories and reward points based on how important each category is.
Add the points up and score based on highest and lowest.

I didn't see any spelling errors or anything. Good descriptions, too.

 

[Michael_S]

(IE not "Well, I thought this should have been in first place, so you're wrong" or "this is unusual, so it's wrong", and please, no personal insults)

Man, are you at the wrong website.

I'm kidding. I haven't driven the vehicles you listed, so I can't say if I agree on all things like interior quality, seat comfort, and so forth. However, I think you do a good job making your decision process transparent - explaining how you weighted things and why.

[EDIT] Is there a reason the Suzuki XL-7 was excluded? How about the Volkswagen Tiguan?

 

[PMC the 1st]

This so-called "comparison test" is a sterling example why tested cars involved in their test need to have their branding and make/model identifiers removed prior to the person doing the test, to make sure there's no bias involved.
This also explains why IFCAR rated the Chevrolet Malibu so low (he rated it next-to-last place four Months ago). The Malibu is actually a European sedan, and if IFCAR tested the sedan with its Opel badging still intact, or if the sedan had no brand identifiers at all, the car no doubt would have been among his highest-rated; not his lowest-rated.

If the Honda CR-V covered under this test had its logo's and brand identifiers removed before IFCAR jumped in the driver's seat, the SUV would have finished mid-pack, and the review would have read something like this:

Originally posted by IFCAR after he pried the Honda logo off the steering wheel:
"The next small SUV tested showed some strengths, but some compromises; and the interior execution is not up to the levels of the other vehicles in the class. For example, the text used to identify gear selection is almost microprint-small and almost invisible at night. Tacky interior trim pervades, with faux-metal plastic trim on the door pulls (five different trim piece colors on one door panel alone, each one injection molded from what appears to be a different kind of plastic), buttons on the door pull are not labeled and too small, rear-seating lumbar support is lop-sided, encouraging passengers to sit at an angle, and while the knobs for temperature and radio are round and large, there are still wide buttons that are not labeled and serve no apparent, useful function. The wide center counsole encroaches on passenger foot space.
An elevated seating position front and back gives a commanding view outwards, helped in part by a large windshield.
The engine is quiet and smooth, but transmission shifts are felt under full-throttle going up a slight incline.
Excessive road noise in this vehicle gives the impression of cheapness and a howling/road-rumbling echoed in the cargo area induces a sense of vulnerability, but driving over bumps does not generate any second-order harmonics to the cabin or rubbery feedback to the steering, which gives the impression of a tightly-assembled interior.
Highway cruising makes the car seem nervous and darty, particularly when driven through mountain passes, where there is high levels of environmental crosswinds. This is made worse by the steering, which needs occasional corrections at this speed due to excessive boosting and a steering ratio that favors tight parking lot maneuvers. Add very high levels of road noise, and you have one vehicle you absolutely do not want to sit in when the speeds reach the federal speed limit.
This vehicle falls short in interior execution, poor rear-seating, driveability at speed, a weak options list that suggests this vehicle is from a second-tier manufacturer that's either unwilling or unable to offer anything but the most basic powertrain combinations, and MSRP expense.
It does well in its safety scores, decent padding in the driver's seats, good, logical execution of the basic control functions (A/C; radio), exceptional, airy greenhouse and a tight, well-fastened body/chassis structure."

I have driven over four of these small SUV's, and I can attest that this is what the Honda CR-V is really about.
Knowing this, the only reason I have for IFCAR rating this SUV so highly is because he went into the test with a high opinion of the manufacturer. This would have induced bias, which colored the results of the test.
When I drove this SUV, I thought it would be a good vehicle for fleet sales to government agencies, like the post office or park maintinace. IFCAR's review seems so far removed from reality that bias introduced at the outset is the only explination I can come up with.

 

[PMC the 1st]

16th place should read "Jeep Patriot" not "Liberty"

Didn't notice any other errors. Good review, as usual.

Since we're on editing, here IFCAR uses the wrong tense:

Furthermore, there's no fundamental reason why a truck-based SUV couldn't have a smooth and quiet engine

"couldn't" should be replaced by "can't."

 

[ifcar]

Man, are you at the wrong website.

I'm kidding. I haven't driven the vehicles you listed, so I can't say if I agree on all things like interior quality, seat comfort, and so forth. However, I think you do a good job making your decision process transparent - explaining how you weighted things and why.

[EDIT] Is there a reason the Suzuki XL-7 was excluded? How about the Volkswagen Tiguan?

Thanks.

Tiguan was way too expensive (price cap at $25k with a AWD, sunroof and 6-disc, which makes for a $30,000 vehicle) and XL-7 is too big.

 

[ifcar]

I wouldn't have ranked the Sportage, or Grand Vitara as high as they were.

I'd also put the Subaru, Toyota, and Saturn ahead of the Hyundai Santa Fe- which is not a bad car by any means....but there are much better choices now.


The Jeep Patriot and Compass are garbage...but I don't know much about the Liberty. I know that Jeep claims that the Liberty has some off road capability, which should be taken into account for your comparison- it will get worse gas mileage and rougher ride/handling but it can handle some moderate off roading. The Sorrento is in the same boat.

Your rating system is also confusing. I think you should divide the categories and reward points based on how important each category is.
Add the points up and score based on highest and lowest.

I didn't see any spelling errors or anything. Good descriptions, too.

As noted in the introduction (and posted here), this comparison is intended for people (most small SUV buyers) who don't go off-road. Many of them buy truck-based SUVs anyway, so it's definitely fair to include those models and then point out that they're not good on-road choices.

In my experience, numerical rating systems simply do not work. They don't give you the opportunity to make seemingly small things into deal-breakers, as they often can be. For example, in most cases there would be no reason to give significant weight to the gauge layout, until someone decides to move them around the dash or to make half of them digital.

 

[ifcar]

This so-called "comparison test" is a sterling example why tested cars involved in their test need to have their branding and make/model identifiers removed prior to the person doing the test, to make sure there's no bias involved.
This also explains why IFCAR rated the Chevrolet Malibu so low (he rated it next-to-last place four Months ago). The Malibu is actually a European sedan, and if IFCAR tested the sedan with its Opel badging still intact, or if the sedan had no brand identifiers at all, the car no doubt would have been among his highest-rated; not his lowest-rated.

Well, no. As with the Nissan Altima, I said the Malibu had too little rear seat space to be a great family sedan. And it wasn't next-to-last.

If the Honda CR-V covered under this test had its logo's and brand identifiers removed before IFCAR jumped in the driver's seat, the SUV would have finished mid-pack, and the review would have read something like this:



I have driven over four of these small SUV's, and I can attest that this is what the Honda CR-V is really about.
Knowing this, the only reason I have for IFCAR rating this SUV so highly is because he went into the test with a high opinion of the manufacturer. This would have induced bias, which colored the results of the test.
When I drove this SUV, I thought it would be a good vehicle for fleet sales to government agencies, like the post office or park maintinace. IFCAR's review seems so far removed from reality that bias introduced at the outset is the only explination I can come up with.

Well, no. In case it hasn't been evident in previous comparison tests (and in the text of this one), I tend to gravitate towards inexpensive cars, and the CR-V is not inexpensive for a small SUV. The inexpensive competition just wasn't as good, unfortunately.

"couldn't" should be replaced by "can't."

Well, no. Either is fine. Can't would mean now, and couldn't would mean when the vehicle was designed. Either makes sense in that context.

 

[calgaryhhr]

My only suggestion is that the Mazda CX-7 should have been included in the evaluation.

I also think if you are setting a price point, using the MSRP as reported on the vehicle manufacturers website would be more appropriate than using some price determined by some other website. When equipped with a sunroof the CX-7 MSRP comes to roughly the same as the Equinox. The price that is provided as the cut off is based on various incentives added in at the time of research and hence varies.

I think the CX-7 has a lot more to offer as compared with the other vehicles despite having a slightly higher price. The RAV-4 was allowed to compete in the evaluation dispite being over the $25,000 mark (albeit by $60 or whatever.)

 

[ifcar]

My only suggestion is that the Mazda CX-7 should have been included in the evaluation.

I also think if you are setting a price point, using the MSRP as reported on the vehicle manufacturers website would be more appropriate than using some price determined by some other website. When equipped with a sunroof the CX-7 MSRP comes to roughly the same as the Equinox. The price that is provided as the cut off is based on various incentives added in at the time of research and hence varies.

I think the CX-7 has a lot more to offer as compared with the other vehicles despite having a slightly higher price. The RAV-4 was allowed to compete in the evaluation dispite being over the $25,000 mark (albeit by $60 or whatever.)

Transaction price estimates are relevant to what people pay for a car. MSRP is not. And $66 over the limit is a bit more excusable than $1,600 over the limit, which the CX-7 did.

I've never thought much of it anyway, so it would not have scored well even if it had been included.

 

[calgaryhhr]

Transaction prices are very relevant to consumers but are extremely variable. A consumer can walk into any dealership at any time and get a different price for the same car they are looking at. When it comes to comparing vehicles the MSRP should be the base line to go from with incentives and haggling being a value added thing. The MSRP is stable.

When my girlfriend and I were shopping for a new car for her we were at the VW dealership and they were clearing out their inventory of 2008 demo vehicles. These vehicles were new because they were never registered but had many miles on them. They even had a Tourag with a sale price of just over $30,000. That price is a little more than the MSRP for the Equinox but you wouldn't dare to compare them side by side because they actually vary so much in MSRP. The Tourag also came with an extra year on the warranty because it was a demo. These are very good incentives but are not common.

This is why I think MSRP should be the base for the comparison and not price after incentives. Incentives tend to sweeten the deal.

 

[ifcar]

Transaction prices are very relevant to consumers but are extremely variable. A consumer can walk into any dealership at any time and get a different price for the same car they are looking at. When it comes to comparing vehicles the MSRP should be the base line to go from with incentives and haggling being a value added thing. The MSRP is stable.

When my girlfriend and I were shopping for a new car for her we were at the VW dealership and they were clearing out their inventory of 2008 demo vehicles. These vehicles were new because they were never registered but had many miles on them. They even had a Tourag with a sale price of just over $30,000. That price is a little more than the MSRP for the Equinox but you wouldn't dare to compare them side by side because they actually vary so much in MSRP. The Tourag also came with an extra year on the warranty because it was a demo. These are very good incentives but are not common.

This is why I think MSRP should be the base for the comparison and not price after incentives. Incentives tend to sweeten the deal.

If you say "this car is a better deal than another because it has a lower price" when it actually costs more is more than unhelpful, it's counterproductive. A demo is akin to a used car, and irrelevant. A car costs what it costs, and using transaction prices that can change is more useful than MSRP prices, which don't change but are always irrelevant.

 

[calgaryhhr]

If you say "this car is a better deal than another because it has a lower price" when it actually costs more is more than unhelpful, it's counterproductive. A demo is akin to a used car, and irrelevant. A car costs what it costs, and using transaction prices that can change is more useful than MSRP prices, which don't change but are always irrelevant.

MSRP is the price that be found on the window sticker of the car when a consumer goes shopping. They aren't going to know the transaction price of a vehicle until the papers are signed. A $28,000 MSRP Equinox might look attractive to someone who is in a region where they offer greater incentives and the price can be negotiated down to say $24,000 but it will be less attractive to someone who can only get down to $26,000.

I checked out the website where the transaction prices are coming from and to get a price it requires a zip code, I'm assuming it uses a database of known incentives to provide a price and hence will vary greatly by region.

If the MSRP is irrelevant, because who buys at MSRP, and quoting some vague transaction price for one region is irrelevant than comparing vehicles on a price basis is next to impossible.

As a side note on the Tourage I mentioned: if it has never been sold and never been registered than it's a new vehicle regardless of mileage. The $30,000 (incentive priced) Tourag is very attractive when compared to a $28,000 (MSRP) Equinox.

 

[ifcar]

If you go in to buy a car without any idea of what you will be paying until you've signed the paper, you're a terrible car shopper. If you compare prices based only on MSRP, ignoring market conditions and non-negotiable rebates, you won't have any idea what you're going to be paying. Yes, it's on the window sticker. So?

And I run the CarsDirect prices for multiple regions, and check them against other price estimators. There are rarely discrepancies of more than a few hundred dollars.

 

[PMC the 1st]

Well, no. As with the Nissan Altima, I said the Malibu had too little rear seat space to be a great family sedan. And it wasn't next-to-last.

Wrong. You ranked the Malibu next to the Dodge Sebring, Charger, legacy, Galant and other, old cars that are either way past their expiration date or cars that are known to be altogether crummy.
You ranked the Malibu in this company for one reason and one reason only: The Chevy Bowtie.

This kind of bias automatically makes you incompetent to test cars in any legitimate fashion. For this reason, you'd serve our soceity better if you found some other line of employment.

Well, no. In case it hasn't been evident in previous comparison tests (and in the text of this one), I tend to gravitate towards inexpensive cars, and the CR-V is not inexpensive for a small SUV. The inexpensive competition just wasn't as good, unfortunately.

It'd be nice if you can make sense at least part of the time.
Do you "gravitate toward inexpensive cars"? Or, is "inexpensive competition [isn't] as good"?

Well, no. Either is fine. Can't would mean now, and couldn't would mean when the vehicle was designed. Either makes sense in that context.

Gentlemen, the man does not know simple, basic rules of grammar. Should he continue this embarassing escapade of evaluating vehicles? Yes or no.