Comparison Test: 2007-2008 Compact Crossovers

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=122496?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1 .* (full article)

The best thing about a compact-utility vehicle is, it doesn't smell like dirty diapers. A small crossover combines carlike size with trucklike utility, but it doesn't post a sign in the rear window that tells everyone you're a breeder in the making. Sure, it's a practical package for couples, but there's every chance that the cargo area contains a beach chair, a bicycle, a gym bag and a furniture box from Ikea.

By our count, there are already 17 compact vehicles in the class of crossover vehicles (http://www.edmunds.com/crossover/index.html) and more are on the way. It seems as if every manufacturer has taken to converting its small-car platforms to utility use, and the crossovers have been enthusiastically embraced. Honda put 170,028 CR-Vs (http://www.edmunds.com/honda/crv/2007/index.html) on the ground in the U.S. in 2006, and Toyota nearly matched it with 152,047 RAV4s (http://www.edmunds.com/toyota/rav4/2007/index.html).

These small crossovers are evolving into niches just as distinct as you'll find in the car market. There are practical ones, sporting ones, tough ones and comfortable ones. We've brought together the 2007 Honda CR-V, 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander (http://www.edmunds.com/mitsubishi/outlander/2007/index.html), 2008 Nissan Rogue (http://www.edmunds.com/nissan/rogue/2008/review.html) and 2007 Toyota RAV4. All share a gestalt of efficiency and social responsibility, yet each has a unique set of qualities and options. We've designed this all-wheel-drive crossover comparison within a frame of affordable enthusiasm, kind of like "gimme all you got for under $30K." Each one delivers a different level of equipment and varying degrees of performance and utility.

4th Place:
Mitsu Outlander

3rd Place:
Honda CR-V

2nd place:
Nissan Rogue

1st place:
Toyota RAV4

Conclusion:

Finally, if you ever find yourself saying, "Sure, I'll take the upgrade," then the 2007 Toyota RAV4 is the best choice for you. It's the benchmark in this segment. It makes a statement with power, but it backs up the message with fuel economy. It rides well, yet goes anywhere. And it combines utility and carlike comfort in a way that fits in your life in every way. The other guys are catching up, but for now, the Toyota RAV4 is still the one to beat.

Kind of an incomplete list:

No Edge (2nd best selling CUV)
No '08 Vue (Totally new!!)
No '07 CX7

What gives? The (yet to be released) Rogue is tested, but no brand new Vue or virtually brand new CX-7. . . . . .I'm not saying any of those three would have won, it just would have been nice to have them included in the comparison. . . .

The new Rav4s are excellent vehicles, I was considering getting one for my wife when her lease is up but Toyota really needs to put a real 4WD or AWD system in the Rav4. The system they have now where it shuts off at 25mph....not that good around here.

Kind of an incomplete list:

No Edge (2nd best selling CUV)
No '08 Vue (Totally new!!)
No '07 CX7

What gives? The (yet to be released) Rogue is tested, but no brand new Vue or virtually brand new CX-7. . . . . .I'm not saying any of those three would have won, it just would have been nice to have them included in the comparison. . . .

Maybe the VUE but I thought the Edge and CX-7 were midsize utes (I mean they put the CX-7, RDX and Murano in the same category.. despite the fact that the RDX is on the small side)

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=122496?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1 .* (full article)

The best thing about a compact-utility vehicle is, it doesn't smell like dirty diapers. A small crossover combines carlike size with trucklike utility, but it doesn't post a sign in the rear window that tells everyone you're a breeder in the making. Sure, it's a practical package for couples, but there's every chance that the cargo area contains a beach chair, a bicycle, a gym bag and a furniture box from Ikea.

By our count, there are already 17 compact vehicles in the class of crossover vehicles (http://www.edmunds.com/crossover/index.html) and more are on the way. It seems as if every manufacturer has taken to converting its small-car platforms to utility use, and the crossovers have been enthusiastically embraced. Honda put 170,028 CR-Vs (http://www.edmunds.com/honda/crv/2007/index.html) on the ground in the U.S. in 2006, and Toyota nearly matched it with 152,047 RAV4s (http://www.edmunds.com/toyota/rav4/2007/index.html).

These small crossovers are evolving into niches just as distinct as you'll find in the car market. There are practical ones, sporting ones, tough ones and comfortable ones. We've brought together the 2007 Honda CR-V, 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander (http://www.edmunds.com/mitsubishi/outlander/2007/index.html), 2008 Nissan Rogue (http://www.edmunds.com/nissan/rogue/2008/review.html) and 2007 Toyota RAV4. All share a gestalt of efficiency and social responsibility, yet each has a unique set of qualities and options. We've designed this all-wheel-drive crossover comparison within a frame of affordable enthusiasm, kind of like "gimme all you got for under $30K." Each one delivers a different level of equipment and varying degrees of performance and utility.

4th Place:
Mitsu Outlander

3rd Place:
Honda CR-V

2nd place:
Nissan Rogue

1st place:
Toyota RAV4

Conclusion:

Finally, if you ever find yourself saying, "Sure, I'll take the upgrade," then the 2007 Toyota RAV4 is the best choice for you. It's the benchmark in this segment. It makes a statement with power, but it backs up the message with fuel economy. It rides well, yet goes anywhere. And it combines utility and carlike comfort in a way that fits in your life in every way. The other guys are catching up, but for now, the Toyota RAV4 is still the one to beat.

I would've thought the Outlander would do better. It looks quite stylish in my eyes (a bit conservative in the front end) and looks good on paper. I've gotta read this article and find out why lol.

I wonder if it's because the RAV4 has a V6...

Rav-4 looks better in every way, when i see it in sport with the rims and that red =O it looks hot plus the power is to die 4....CR-V owner are going to cry with their 0-60 time in like 10 sec ++O

Rav-4 looks better in every way, when i see it in sport with the rims and that red =O it looks hot plus the power is to die 4....CR-V owner are going to cry with their 0-60 time in like 10 sec ++O
which is fairly acceptable I think given the weight of the vehicle. But you're right, the V6 is just that little bit sweeter.

I wonder if Toyota will ever bring the SWB version of the RAV4 (or rather, the standard size lol) with the 4 cylinder. They might if it gets competitive over the next few years and they need a lower price point.

Yeah, the new CR-V is fugly! Like most new Honda's which is a shame cause its a good company. Anyway the new Outlanders IMO do look great! Certainly better than the outgoing one, yuck! Altough Toyotafanfan said they are coming out with a new CUV so maybe smaller than the RAV4 or about the same size??? Anyway if the RAV4 gets bigger which I'm sure it will with future gens it will defeat the purpose then again it has been getting bigger with each new gen but that's the way the cookie crumbles. I guess your kids have to grow up sometime.

I was hoping the CX-7 and VUE were going to be in there.

the rogue looks like a an ugly murano, but in a smaller pkg

Kind of an incomplete list:

No Edge (2nd best selling CUV)
No '08 Vue (Totally new!!)
No '07 CX7

What gives? The (yet to be released) Rogue is tested, but no brand new Vue or virtually brand new CX-7. . . . . .I'm not saying any of those three would have won, it just would have been nice to have them included in the comparison. . . .

Compact CUV Comparo...the Edge and Vue are midsized CUVs which compete against the Highlander, Pilot, Murano, etc.

The new Rav4s are excellent vehicles, I was considering getting one for my wife when her lease is up but Toyota really needs to put a real 4WD or AWD system in the Rav4. The system they have now where it shuts off at 25mph....not that good around here.

The AWD systen doesn't shut off at 25 mph only the 'locking' of the front and rear axels shuts off. The AWD system is always in play whenever the vehicle needs it. In fact those that have had it over the first two winters say that it's great in most situations that don't require a true SUV.

Compact CUV Comparo...the Edge and Vue are midsized CUVs which compete against the Highlander, Pilot, Murano, etc.


I'll give you the Edge and CX-7 are midsize (barely), but the '08 VUE is definitely not a midsize (no matter how the EPA or GM decides to classify it). It is shorter than the RAV4 (by 1"), and is only 1.3" wider. . . . . all other dimensions are nearly identical.

To exclude the VUE (that can currently be purchased), yet include the Rogue (that has yet to be released) is kind of weird. What about the all new Kia Rondo or the all new Jeep Compass. I'm not disagreeing with the winners/losers, just that it's incomplete and practically worthless to a consumer who wants to look at more than these 4 CUV's.

Edmunds was incomplete in it's testing, so who's to say what is truly the best compact CUV?

^i agree with the incomplete list. i duno bout the cx7, cuz i thought the cx9 was the midsize competitor.

The AWD systen doesn't shut off at 25 mph only the 'locking' of the front and rear axels shuts off. The AWD system is always in play whenever the vehicle needs it. In fact those that have had it over the first two winters say that it's great in most situations that don't require a true SUV.

"Front-wheel-drive versions get a limited-slip differential, while electronically controlled on-demand 4WD is optional. This new system automatically distributes torque to the rear wheels as needed when the fronts lose traction. Manually locking 4WD disengages the automatic mode to maximize torque to the rear wheels below 25 mph. This lock mode disengages at speeds above 25 mph and also during braking to optimize ABS and stability control. "


I thought it didn't have AWD, but 4WD that shuts off completely at 25, reverting to 2WD. My sisters mother-in-law has an 06 and absolutely hated it in the winter, it is unpredictable to drive. I never drove one in the winter, so its heresay.


But I could be wrong, Toyota.com didnt have much info.

"Front-wheel-drive versions get a limited-slip differential, while electronically controlled on-demand 4WD is optional. This new system automatically distributes torque to the rear wheels as needed when the fronts lose traction. Manually locking 4WD disengages the automatic mode to maximize torque to the rear wheels below 25 mph. This lock mode disengages at speeds above 25 mph and also during braking to optimize ABS and stability control. "


I thought it didn't have AWD, but 4WD that shuts off completely at 25, reverting to 2WD. My sisters mother-in-law has an 06 and absolutely hated it in the winter, it is unpredictable to drive. I never drove one in the winter, so its heresay.


But I could be wrong, Toyota.com didnt have much info.

Rav does have AWD above 25....it's just demand based.. at 45mph cruising on a straight stretch you'll get a 95-5% split of power front to rear, ie only residual power to the rear. Step on the gas or experience traction loss (or different wheel speeds) and you'll get up to 55% of power at the rear wheels.

And isn't the Vue just a warmed over Torrent?

And isn't the Vue just a warmed over Torrent?

The first gen VUE did share paltforms with the Torrent and the Equinox (theta platform), however the '08 Vue is brand new and based off of an Opel Antara (GM Europe).

Opel:

http://autoreview.belproject.com/media/1/20060905-2007-opel-antara-front.jpg (http://autoreview.belproject.com/item/262)

Saturn:

http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/assets/resources/2006/11/2008-Saturn-Vue.jpg

Rav does have AWD above 25....it's just demand based.. at 45mph cruising on a straight stretch you'll get a 95-5% split of power front to rear, ie only residual power to the rear. Step on the gas or experience traction loss (or different wheel speeds) and you'll get up to 55% of power at the rear wheels.



Thanks for clearing that up, it seemed the more I read or heard (falsely obviously) didn't really explain it, thanks.

both the rav4 and crv seem like good cars. to be honest the crv needs more power but is acceptable for fuel economy purposes. if people wanted a fast car, they wouldnt have bought the crv but a more affordable and convenient car. besides a crv does use a k-series motor lol beef that shit up. in japan they do have a mugen crv which looks pretty good. but power it has now just doesnt cut it. the rav4's power is way better.

I would've thought the Outlander would do better. It looks quite stylish in my eyes (a bit conservative in the front end) and looks good on paper. I've gotta read this article and find out why lol.

I wonder if it's because the RAV4 has a V6...

Me too. But remember, the difference between fourth to third was less than 1 point and from fourth to second was only 2.1 points, so....... As it says in the article, they all are great vehicles. Of course, they scored a whole much difference with the rav4, because of his "subjective superiority". :)

They also say, "impressive features" but Im still waiting for them.. where are they?
The outlander got several features that are really impressive and exclusive , like: auto-leveling Xenon HID headlights, the HDD navigation system and music server, optional audio system 650 watts rockford fosgate, (as it says "the sound quality of the optional JBL audio is only slighty better than the standard system"), FAST KEY (keyless go) .
Paddle shifters are shared only with the rogue and of course, not forget outlanders 6 speed automatic.

The rav4 is fast yes, hands down, but if horsepower or perfomance was the number one priority Im sure the others would have better choices, but no, thats why cr-v and rogue only offer 4 cylinders. SO..it says, the "rav4 backs up the message with fuel economy"....ok but "Our real-world experience numbers, as the Honda's combined average computes to 20 mpg and compares to the Toyota's 19 mpg." and the outlander gets 18mpg....so a 5% difference only? :clap: and honda and rogue with better mpg numbers of course.

Then, it says it can go anywhere, but "The Mitsubishi AWD system is perhaps the most advanced, with three modes of driver-selectable operation, but no locking feature", so rav4s are very competent, but they are not playing catching up there.
Competitive price? I think they all are , not only the rav4's, outlander is priced at $30615 and the rav4 at $29374, yes, still a difference of $1241 (not at all a big deal) but if u take into acount all the features the outlanders provides and the rav4 does not, it blows that argument.

Utility? all of them have that quality, and thats why cr-v has 72.9, outlander 72.6 and rav has 73.0 cubic feet of max cargo. Whats the advantage there? "a low liftover height for cargo"? Not an advantage, cause the outlander has flap-fold tailgate just as useful.

So....just my $100.

Amazing how the CR-V has just as much room as the RAV4 despite the fact that it's shorter. A low loading floor makes a big difference (same thing btwn the old CR-V and old RAV4). The price you pay for that is the swing-out door.

Also, I was looking at a loaded CR-V in the US.. $28k with nav?!?!? Ours cost $34k! Quite a bargain! (I think that's $28k is close to the starting price of a RAV4 up here. I know a RAV4 Limited 4x4 with leather and JBL audio is $37k)

Me too. But remember, the difference between fourth to third was less than 1 point and from fourth to second was only 2.1 points, so....... As it says in the article, they all are great vehicles. Of course, they scored a whole much difference with the rav4, because of his "subjective superiority". :)

They also say, "impressive features" but Im still waiting for them.. where are they?
The outlander got several features that are really impressive and exclusive , like: auto-leveling Xenon HID headlights, the HDD navigation system and music server, optional audio system 650 watts rockford fosgate, (as it says "the sound quality of the optional JBL audio is only slighty better than the standard system"), FAST KEY (keyless go) .
Paddle shifters are shared only with the rogue and of course, not forget outlanders 6 speed automatic.

The rav4 is fast yes, hands down, but if horsepower or perfomance was the number one priority Im sure the others would have better choices, but no, thats why cr-v and rogue only offer 4 cylinders. SO..it says, the "rav4 backs up the message with fuel economy"....ok but "Our real-world experience numbers, as the Honda's combined average computes to 20 mpg and compares to the Toyota's 19 mpg." and the outlander gets 18mpg....so a 5% difference only? :clap: and honda and rogue with better mpg numbers of course.

Then, it says it can go anywhere, but "The Mitsubishi AWD system is perhaps the most advanced, with three modes of driver-selectable operation, but no locking feature", so rav4s are very competent, but they are not playing catching up there.
Competitive price? I think they all are , not only the rav4's, outlander is priced at $30615 and the rav4 at $29374, yes, still a difference of $1241 (not at all a big deal) but if u take into acount all the features the outlanders provides and the rav4 does not, it blows that argument.

Utility? all of them have that quality, and thats why cr-v has 72.9, outlander 72.6 and rav has 73.0 cubic feet of max cargo. Whats the advantage there? "a low liftover height for cargo"? Not an advantage, cause the outlander has flap-fold tailgate just as useful.

So....just my $100. wow, you went out of your way to spin every point and perspective to suit your opinion :ughcool:

So far, all I'm hearing is that you don't favor the Rav4's win in this comparo (done by a journalist from a reputed automotive review website who actually drove and used all the cars tested) because:

- it doesn't have paddle-shifter
- it has a V6 that yields comparable fuel economy to the rivals' less powerful 4-cylinder
- it can go anywhere
- it's priced cheaper than some of the rivals in this test
- it has the most cargo capacity out of all testers
- it has a low liftover height which means less lifting work for the users


That's the most UNBIASED comment I've ever read :rolleyes:

Also, I was looking at a loaded CR-V in the US.. $28k with nav?!?!? Ours cost $34k! Quite a bargain! (I think that's $28k is close to the starting price of a RAV4 up here. I know a RAV4 Limited 4x4 with leather and JBL audio is $37k)
Comparing the price of a car in the US to Canada is like comparing the price of an apple in the US to Canada. It's obvious that we Canadians get ripped off big time in car prices, compared to those in the US. It's hardly a fair comparison because the Canadian market will charge more to the point where the market can bear. Go to the States and you can get relatively much cheaper prices on the same Toyota cars, or cars from pretty much any manufacturer.

wow, you went out of your way to spin every point and perspective to suit your opinion :ughcool:

So far, all I'm hearing is that you don't favor the Rav4's win in this comparo (done by a journalist from a reputed automotive review website who actually drove and used all the cars tested) because:

- it doesn't have paddle-shifter
- it has a V6 that yields comparable fuel economy to the rivals' less powerful 4-cylinder
- it can go anywhere
- it's priced cheaper than some of the rivals in this test
- it has the most cargo capacity out of all testers
- it has a low liftover height which means less lifting work for the users


That's the most UNBIASED comment I've ever read :rolleyes:

As usual from u, all talking about unbiased stuff , oh baby, the donkey talking about ears.
Not my opinion, all facts. Maybe u have to read it twice or even more times to understand it. Im not gonna go thru all of my explanations and quotes again for u to see the picture. Maybe u are the one thats ignores facts and quotes just for your ignorant convenience... thats the most IGNORANT comment Ive ever read. Maybe u should get a life and stop focussing on my posts dude, cause you'll never get it.

Comparing the price of a car in the US to Canada is like comparing the price of an apple in the US to Canada. It's obvious that we Canadians get ripped off big time in car prices, compared to those in the US. It's hardly a fair comparison because the Canadian market will charge more to the point where the market can bear. Go to the States and you can get relatively much cheaper prices on the same Toyota cars, or cars from pretty much any manufacturer.

Yeah that and they get discounts ($2k off an 07 Camry without bargaining?!? in BC, we get nothing for an 07).

Oh and the RAV4 isn't cheaper. Like I said, the CR-V with nav is $28k. The RAV4 they tested is $29k if I'm not mistaken.

As usual from u, all talking about unbiased stuff , oh baby, the donkey talking about ears.
Not my opinion, all facts. Maybe u have to read it twice or even more times to understand it. Im not gonna go thru all of my explanations and quotes again for u to see the picture. Maybe u are the one thats ignores facts and quotes just for your ignorant convenience... thats the most IGNORANT comment Ive ever read. Maybe u should get a life and stop focussing on my posts dude, cause you'll never get it.
"Not my opinion, all facts"...right, that's very objective of you :rolleyes: "Ignorant convenience"? "Subjective superiority"? What the hell do they actually mean? You can't just put any two words together and hope that they actually make sense, buddy. Btw it's spelled "focusing", with one "s".

I did read your post many times, and from what I can see, basically you're refuting many good points of the reviewed winner to justify that you don't favor the winner. You could've just said (in fewer sentences than all that gibberish you called "english") that "despite all the shortcomings of the non-winners, I'd still rather take any one of them other than the Rav4." Isn't that easier?

Dunno about your $100 that's worth less than 2 cents here, but I do have a life. If I'm not alive right now I wouldn't be able to turn the computer on and log on to the interweb :rolleyes: I'm and I always will focus on all of your posts because you claimed to be 100% unbiased, 100% objective. And whenever I don't see any of that from your post, I'll call you out on that. If you don't like it, you can either not come here, not post, or ignore me. Take your pick.

Maybe you should ask yourself why I'll never get your post, and for the most part I do get it, albeit what I'm reading from your posts merely contradicts with your so-called "unbiased" point of view and philosophy. I suggest you should take some advance courses in learning english (that's "ingles" in your language so you can understand what I was saying). You should also pick out a dictionary and start studying, make sure to read the words "bias", "subjectivity" and "objectivity" to really learn the real definition of those words, other than passing it off as if you knew what they meant the first time you saw those words.

It'd be okay to admit that you're just not as bright communicating in a 2nd language that isn't native to you, rather than trying to be pissed off and said a bunch of gibberish that only babies can understand.


Just my 101.69 Canadian dollars

Oh and the RAV4 isn't cheaper. Like I said, the CR-V with nav is $28k. The RAV4 they tested is $29k if I'm not mistaken.
How much would the Rav4 cost if it's not the V6?