[goblue]

OK then, so whenever a competitor is ahead of the F150, Camry, Corolla, or Odyssey in a comparo, it's now invalid because there is no way they can beat the best seller. Good to know.

Instead of chugging the GM Kool-Aid, do yourself a favor and actually read the review before you write it off, rather than bemoan the fact that the GM vehicle didn't win the comparison. I read the review, and the Equinox's bronze medal winning was perfectly justifiable, in particular the poor power delivery and the poor MPG ratings by the EPA and in the real world as the reviewer experienced.

Then the whole review is hinging on the engine (and I'm not a fan either) - because the Equinox is ridiculously superior to the Kia and Rav-4 in many other areas.

As far as chugging the Kool-Aid, yes - sales certainly aren't the measure of everything - but if you're going to put the class leader behind a rebadged Hyundai aka Kia and a 5 year old Toyota design, it's going to have to be for more than a few MPGs.

I stand by what I said on the last page - Brady would find a way, and he did. Fortunately, with logic like he is using, he will never make it out of the minors - so the anti-GM bias won't have an impact.

 

[chevytodd]

I would vote for the Rav myself. If nothing else having a third row seat available is HUGE in this class. For me, it would be a toss up between the Rav and the CR-V if I were in the market for a "cute-ute"..... Only because I myself don't need a third row. The 'Nox wouldn't even be on my list......

 

[YEH]

Putting aside the whole silly "best selling" argument, I think Brady's assessment of each vehicle, thus far, is pretty spot on (well, I don't know about the Durango since I haven't looked at it).

The Santa Fe was a pretty decent CUV when it debuted and as Brady stated, had a nicer quality interior than it does now.

The main problem w/ the SF was it's lower fuel economy due to having an older engine lineup but that has been rectified in this model year.

But still, the SF is aging and it never was a one of the better handling CUVs.

The 'Nox may be the best looking CUV on the list; don't exactly like the shape of the headlights and taillights, but everything else looks nice and it has the best interior of the group.

What hurts the 'Nox is its fuel economy and not having available 3rd row seating (and yes, it's cargo space was somewhat lacking).

But still, I would put the 'Nox ahead of the RAV-4.

No need to read the review. Putting the 5 year old Rav-4 and a Kia (which is just a cheaper version of the 5th place car) ahead of the best selling crossover family in its class shows the reviewer is not representative of the general population.

Have you looked at, much less driven all these CUVs?

I doubt it, esp. since you even get the basics wrong. The Sorento is not "just a cheaper version of the 5th place car" (I don't know how one can call it "cheaper" when a loaded Sorento SX has an MSRP that approaches $38k) and is built on the next-gen Santa Fe platform (the next gen SF would be equivalent to the Sorento, not the current one).

Also, Kias and Hyundais tend to have quite different driving characteristics, so one isn't necessarily indicative of the other.

 

[bradyholt]

No need to read the review. Putting the 5 year old Rav-4 and a Kia (which is just a cheaper version of the 5th place car) ahead of the best selling crossover family in its class shows the reviewer is not representative of the general population.

I haven't read the review - but my guess is Brady again doesn't get how a sliding rear seat works, this was part of the issue last time. GM can't cherry pick, they put the seat for max legroom and take the hit on the cargo bay. You get best in class rear legroom at a cost, but if you set the rear legroom on par with competitors, you'll find a more generous cargo bay.

Like I said on the last page - Brady would find a way to hamstring this car in what's a very easy win for the Nox.

Before reading the review, you decided that it would be unfair if the Equinox came in anything but first place, based on any criteria, and I'm the one being biased?

I don't know what you mean by "last time," which is when I explicitly spelled out the potential impact of the sliding seat on cargo numbers, but the specification with the rear seat folded is the more lacking figure anyway.

Also, the Equinox isn't the best-seller of these six -- the RAV4 is. Most likely because the age of a car's design has very little bearing on the general population you are so fond of invoking. Not that a review should rank cars based on how well they sell anyway.

 

[goblue]

Before reading the review, you decided that it would be unfair if the Equinox came in anything but first place, based on any criteria, and I'm the one being biased?

I don't know what you mean by "last time," which is when I explicitly spelled out the potential impact of the sliding seat on cargo numbers, but the specification with the rear seat folded is the more lacking figure anyway.

Also, the Equinox isn't the best-seller of these six -- the RAV4 is. Most likely because the age of a car's design has very little bearing on the general population you are so fond of invoking. Not that a review should rank cars based on how well they sell anyway.

I believe the family (terrain+nox) is the best seller in the class. For GM to pull that off with all its baggage over Toyota is a heck of a win.

I've spent at least some time in 4 of these vehicles, including the Rav-4, and it's no contest. Again, no need to read the review - putting that car in 3rd in this group shows a complete lack of understanding to what makes a competitive vehicle.

 

[YEH]

^ Let's face it, you just wouldn't be happy if the 'Nox didn't place first.

 

[goblue]

^ Let's face it, you just wouldn't be happy if the 'Nox didn't place first.

That's correct - in this field of vehicles, it's a straightforward conclusion.

 

[bradyholt]

Second place: Toyota RAV4

After the 2001 Suzuki XL-7 that pioneered this “tweener-ute” market niche, the Toyota RAV4 was the first competing SUV to follow its path when it was last redesigned for the 2006 model year. A longer version of RAV4s sold elsewhere in the world, the U.S. version promptly distinguished itself for its available third-row seat, spacious cargo hold, and impressive driving dynamics...

Continued at link:
http://www.examiner.com/cars-in-nat...ional/comparison-review-compact-midsize-tweener-ute-crossover-suvs-second-place

 

[chevytodd]

Personally, the Rav, despite being a little long in the tooth now, would have won this comparo. But, I for the most part agree with your finding Brady. And, it would seem so does the majority of the buying public.

 

[YEH]

That's correct - in this field of vehicles, it's a straightforward conclusion.

Really, Car & Driver doesn't seem to think so w/ their 8 small/mid-size CUV comparison where the 'Nox's corporate cousin, the Terrain, finished 6th (behind the Mitsu Outlander)?

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...r_outlander_forester_grand_vitara_-comparison_tests/2010_gmc_terrain_sle_page_4

 

[goblue]

Really, Car & Driver doesn't seem to think so w/ their 8 small/mid-size CUV comparison where the 'Nox's corporate cousin, the Terrain, finished 6th (behind the Mitsu Outlander)?

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...r_outlander_forester_grand_vitara_-comparison_tests/2010_gmc_terrain_sle_page_4

There's a reason the Terrain makes up a small percentage of Theta volume. There's nothing professional grade about it, and I believe there is a significant cost difference - but some like the styling.

 

[bradyholt]

There's a reason the Terrain makes up a small percentage of Theta volume. There's nothing professional grade about it, and I believe there is a significant cost difference - but some like the styling.

The only major cost difference is that there's no Terrain equivalent to the base Equinox LS; its standard equipment is in line with the Chevrolet's LT. Otherwise, they're pretty close.

 

[ponchoman49]

The Rav 4's only real strength lies in it's optional V6 which doesn't make up very many sales and the third rear seat. In most other areas including seat comfort, the base 4 cylinder tied to the old 4 speed automatic, the clumsy designed rear hatch that should open up in addition to the side, a rather cheap interior and soggy handling and steering, the Rav 4 shows it's age. My boss has a 2009 Limited and said she would never buy another. It rides like a truck, is rather gutless on anything but a straight line, it's seat grow uncomfortable over time and the rear car door like hatch is a pain in the but if you forget to park behind someone in the parking lot. The momment a car or truck is behind you and close you have to pull out in order to get the door open. I do agree on the Equinox placing however but I think it does those things better such as the seat comfort, driving dynamics and the superior rear hatch design. The biggest letdown is the engine as always and Toyota does have the better V6.

 

[mercy09]

If I was in the market for a small SUV, I'd go for the RAV4. I like the styling, comfort, and the power from the V6. It should be getting a redesign this year, so hopefully they improve the 3rd row seating and the dash materials.

 

[goblue]

The only major cost difference is that there's no Terrain equivalent to the base Equinox LS; its standard equipment is in line with the Chevrolet's LT. Otherwise, they're pretty close.

No - but you can keep trying to justify your minor league thinking. Kia. Seriously - don't think I'll stop laughing for a while...

 

[goblue]

If I was in the market for a small SUV, I'd go for the RAV4. I like the styling, comfort, and the power from the V6. It should be getting a redesign this year, so hopefully they improve the 3rd row seating and the dash materials.

Personally, I think its the ugliest - with the CR-V close behind.

 

[bradyholt]

First place: Kia Sorento

Think of Kia, and what comes first to your mind? Most likely a dirt-cheap tin-can econobox, or, if you're familiar with the Korean automaker's most recent small cars, a pleasant dirt-cheap econobox.

Think again.

Since Kia added size and luxury to its Sorento early last year, and converted it from a truck-type SUV to a car-based crossover, it has been the brand's top seller. Some 55 percent more Americans bought Sorentos than compact Forte sedans in 2010, and this SUV outsold Kia's smallest and least-expensive model, the Rio, by more than fourfold.

That's not to say that the Sorento is either the biggest or the most luxurious of the six compact/midsize “tweener utes” in this comparison. And at around $30,000 out the door nicely equipped, despite the Kia stereotype, it's not the least expensive either.

But the Sorento is able to sell so strongly at a fairly high price point because it has the all-around sense of solidity that defies the brand stereotype...

Continued at link:
http://www.examiner.com/cars-in-nat...tional/comparison-review-compact-midsize-tweener-ute-crossover-suvs-first-place

 

[Barry Badrinath]

Sometimes I wonder if you think along the lines of what the potential buyer for a class of car would want. Since 3rd row seating kept coming up, how easy would it be to install 5 child seats into it? And then how easy would it be to get them in and out? Cause that is all those vestigial seats in the back can handle, not an adult. And you need to be what, over 4 foot something or 100 lbs to not need the child seat, correct?

Seriously, if you need to fit 7, get a Traverse class or used Tahoe or something. Or don't have 5 hypothetical children.

And luxuries... If this is your spouse's daily driver, are you going to subject them to an "adequate" interior, in materials, layout and finish? Or does all that matter is how it performs in a slalom or cone test? From what I have seen, the Equinox's best attribute is that the interior is (perhaps was, have not seen the new Dodge) on a level of its own, and people have bought it for that alone. I have seen people simply walk away from the RAV, CRv and Kia before even driving, because the interiors don't even come close.

I am not saying the Equinox is perfect, but I interpreted your writing as though you were adding weight to characteristics which are not as important in this class.

 

[bradyholt]

Sometimes I wonder if you think along the lines of what the potential buyer for a class of car would want. Since 3rd row seating kept coming up, how easy would it be to install 5 child seats into it? And then how easy would it be to get them in and out? Cause that is all those vestigial seats in the back can handle, not an adult. And you need to be what, over 4 foot something or 100 lbs to not need the child seat, correct?

Seriously, if you need to fit 7, get a Traverse class or used Tahoe or something. Or don't have 5 hypothetical children.

And luxuries... If this is your spouse's daily driver, are you going to subject them to an "adequate" interior, in materials, layout and finish? Or does all that matter is how it performs in a slalom or cone test? From what I have seen, the Equinox's best attribute is that the interior is (perhaps was, have not seen the new Dodge) on a level of its own, and people have bought it for that alone. I have seen people simply walk away from the RAV, CRv and Kia before even driving, because the interiors don't even come close.

I am not saying the Equinox is perfect, but I interpreted your writing as though you were adding weight to characteristics which are not as important in this class.

I think it spelled out pretty clearly what the Sorento's third row is good for: additional passenger capacity when needed, so that someone who only occasionally needs to seat seven doesn't need to deal with the bulk and price of a Traverse or Tahoe 365 days a year.

About interiors, it's the Equinox's subjective styling -- not its materials or build quality -- that's a standout. The Sorento's quality matches it; it just doesn't look as fancy. But the Kia is more user-friendly, so it's a tradeoff rather than a decisive victory for either.

 

[Barry Badrinath]

I think it spelled out pretty clearly what the Sorento's third row is good for: additional passenger capacity when needed, so that someone who only occasionally needs to seat seven doesn't need to deal with the bulk and price of a Traverse or Tahoe 365 days a year.

About interiors, it's the Equinox's subjective styling -- not its materials or build quality -- that's a standout. The Sorento's quality matches it; it just doesn't look as fancy. But the Kia is more user-friendly, so it's a tradeoff rather than a decisive victory for either.

Spelled out clearly? It is good for nothing. The "occasional" use of an inadequately designed 3rd row seat that is useless. Rent a van then if your needs are that "occasional".

If it is opinion, subjective styling that is, then your "opinion" runs counter to what the majority of professionals have written and said. But hey, I guess that is where your "life long expertise of autos" comes into play. User friendliness is opinion. You comparison of quality is opinion.

Well, I thank you for your opinion. Now tell me where the "thumbs down" rating is at your website, to express my opinion.