small SUVs .... so many choices.

[Kaido]

OP, how about Subaru CrossTrek? I like the styling.

I do like the HR-V better than CR-V because of the look but the current horsepower of the HR-V is just too weak.

I didn't really like the space in the HR-V; it was supposed to be a lifted Fit, but nah. Liked the old Fit a lot better (before they ruined the design lol).

 

[gus6464]

So here's a question for you CUV/small SUV shoppers. Are you buying those cars because you want to take them offroad or because you think it has more space than a family sedan/wagon? Because most of these cars are smaller than the family sedan in the space department. I know someone who just got an HR-V and it's freaking tiny inside compared to my Accord. Also. have you all seen the interior of the Prius V? It's freaking massive inside and has tons of usable cargo room. This is pretty much the same for all wagons. The Subaru Outback is another example.

 

[BurnItDwn]

So here's a question for you CUV/small SUV shoppers. Are you buying those cars because you want to take them offroad or because you think it has more space than a family sedan/wagon? Because most of these cars are smaller than the family sedan in the space department. I know someone who just got an HR-V and it's freaking tiny inside compared to my Accord. Also. have you all seen the interior of the Prius V? It's freaking massive inside and has tons of usable cargo room. This is pretty much the same for all wagons. The Subaru Outback is another example.

I bought my 2008 forester because it has more cargo space and head room than the impreza and legacy. It is cheap to insure, has good clearance for bad roads, snow, etc, and fit my budget. 2008 forester is more or less a lifted small wagon.

I bought 2010 Edge for the woman instead of similar year wagon because it provides easy ingress/egress for her mother, is comfortable, is safe, has good clearance for bad roads, snow, etc, and fit the budget.

 

[Viper GTS]

So here's a question for you CUV/small SUV shoppers. Are you buying those cars because you want to take them offroad or because you think it has more space than a family sedan/wagon? Because most of these cars are smaller than the family sedan in the space department. I know someone who just got an HR-V and it's freaking tiny inside compared to my Accord. Also. have you all seen the interior of the Prius V? It's freaking massive inside and has tons of usable cargo room. This is pretty much the same for all wagons. The Subaru Outback is another example.

For the sake of entertainment, comparing a 2016 Prius V with 2016 CX-5:

CX-5 is shorter in length (by 3"), though wider (by the same 3"). There is negligible difference in seats up cargo capacity, the prius has a slight advantage in max cargo capacity (67.3 vs 64.8 cubic feet, less than 4% more).

Oh and the CX-5 costs $5k/20% less (base vs base), has more shoulder, hip, and head room all around, far more rear leg room (0.3" less front leg room), weighs 150 lbs less, and has nearly 3" extra ground clearance and available AWD.

Viper GTS

 

[NutBucket]

In our case its easier to load a kid into a CUV because you don't have to bend down as you would for a sedan. Plus, what wagons are out there anyway? 3 series, Golf and Prius V are all options. BMW is too expensive while the Golf is too small and I haven't given up on life yet so no Prius.

In retrospect the wife and I should have bought an Outback instead of the Forester but note the Outback is about 10" longer.

 

[ControlD]

So here's a question for you CUV/small SUV shoppers. Are you buying those cars because you want to take them offroad or because you think it has more space than a family sedan/wagon?

Neither. I bought my Escape primarily because of all the cars I test drove it was the one I liked driving the best. I also like sitting up a little bit higher than you do in a traditional sedan and having more ground clearance for the winter months. Total cargo space and/or the ability to go off road had exactly zero impact on my buying decision.

Also, why pick the tiny HR-V for your comparison? That fits more into the subcompact crossover category, sort of like the Mazda CX-3. I would agree with your assessment that those are perhaps not the greatest purchase considering they give you almost nothing over whatever car platform they are built on (the CX-3 for example has less storage and same ground clearance as the Mazda 3 hatchback). It seems like the CR-V would have been a better comparison vehicle.

 

[gorcorps]

So here's a question for you CUV/small SUV shoppers. Are you buying those cars because you want to take them offroad or because you think it has more space than a family sedan/wagon? Because most of these cars are smaller than the family sedan in the space department. I know someone who just got an HR-V and it's freaking tiny inside compared to my Accord. Also. have you all seen the interior of the Prius V? It's freaking massive inside and has tons of usable cargo room. This is pretty much the same for all wagons. The Subaru Outback is another example.

Depends on the weather you're dealing with. If you want/need AWD you have pretty limited options in the sedan department.

 

[HitAnyKey]

Of all the choices, the Mazda CX-5 is the one to beat in my books. Provided you feel comfortable sitting front/back, it should tick all the boxes. It looks good, has a normal transmission and not a CVT, is great on gas, is spacious, and last time I checked had a better than average reliability score.

I would never recommend a Turbo motor for a long-term family vehicle so I cannot recommend the Ford Escape for that reason alone. But I do think its probably a better 'driving' SUV because of the Turbo. Again you need to decide what is more important to you. The same reason I wouldn't suggest the Turbo Tucson or Turbo Santa Fe. The Santa Fe with the NA engine is going to be a slug and not something I would want to drive daily.

One last suggestion and not sure you have already. I would suggest you compare the Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4 back to back to make sure you cover all your bases. Arguably the two most reliable SUVs your going to find. However if either comes with a CVT, I would be very hesitant to buy. That is the reason why I wouldn't buy the Nissan Rogue.

Good luck in your search.

 

[NutBucket]

What's your issue with the CVT? It's arguably the best choice for the non-enthusiast.

 

[heymrdj]

Wife just started shopping for the next lease to replace her 2014 Buick Verano, so we headed out this past labor day weekend to look at things. She tried a 2017 Kia Sportage Ex and LOVED it. It was AWD and very responsive. You might give it a try, that or it's Hyundai brother. Sadly our dealers for both brands are terrible, so if she wants to go that route, we'll have to buy 97 miles away.

 

[gorcorps]

What's your issue with the CVT? It's arguably the best choice for the non-enthusiast.

I don't get it either. The CVT was the one thing I miss about the Rogue. I'm probably going to go with a hybrid Highlander next, and one big reason is the e-CVT in the toyota hybrid system.

 

[BurnItDwn]

What's your issue with the CVT? It's arguably the best choice for the non-enthusiast.

CVTs can be a bit more unpredictable vs a regular automatic. When you are on the highway and need to accelerate, they tend to take their sweet time before finding the sweet spot where you actually accelerate with any vigor.

In principal, they are great, but, they are all still imperfect.

 

[NutBucket]

The Forester we bought in 2014 is the first non-MT daily driver I've had. Yes, there is a slight delay when you want it to "downshift" but not much different than any traditional AT I've driven IMHO.

I know what to expect from the CVT; it revs up and holds about 5k rpm when accelerating hard, for example. Ratio changes are basically imperceivable aside from engine noise and and the whole driving experience is much smoother than a traditional AT. There are basically zero downsides to it if you approach it from the non-enthusiast standpoint. Even from my "enthusiast" standpoint I find it does what I think it should. These fake "shift" points that some manufacturers add are completely pointless and actually reduce efficiency.

 

[BurnItDwn]

The Forester we bought in 2014 is the first non-MT daily driver I've had. Yes, there is a slight delay when you want it to "downshift" but not much different than any traditional AT I've driven IMHO.

I know what to expect from the CVT; it revs up and holds about 5k rpm when accelerating hard, for example. Ratio changes are basically imperceivable aside from engine noise and and the whole driving experience is much smoother than a traditional AT. There are basically zero downsides to it if you approach it from the non-enthusiast standpoint. Even from my "enthusiast" standpoint I find it does what I think it should. These fake "shift" points that some manufacturers add are completely pointless and actually reduce efficiency.

Yea, my next car will likely be a CVT, they are better than normal automatics in many ways. They have been used in ATVs and such for decades and those tend to be pretty enthusiast friendly toys.

I imagine if I spent real time with a CVT car I would get used to it pretty quickly.

The CVT I mostly was complaining about was the one in the WRX, which has "fake" shift points. (simulates an 8 speed auto IIRC)
Based upon what I have read (not my own personal experience), your on the highway cruising, and you floor it, the outcome is not the same every time. Sometimes car behaves like a regular automatic, finds a better ratio, gives you more power in a sort of linear fashion.
Sometimes car takes a couple of seconds "downshifting" ane once it finds the ratio, it gives you all 6K RPM and all the torque in the world all at once ... which in a car with almost 1G of acceleration, can be a bit of a surprise, thus, I made the claim of "can be a bit more unpredictable."

I was playing the devils advocate and coming up with possible reasons why somebody may not want a CVT.
The claims I made were vague and based upon what I have read. They are not based on first hand experience.

So, I admit freely that they are not nealy as much "educated opinion" as yours NutBucket.

Thank you

 

[NutBucket]

Yeah, there's no way I'd want a CVT in any sort of performance oriented vehicle. In fact I was set on buying a Forester with an MT but the driving experience was so underwhelming I said why bother.

Also, as you note the implementation makes all the difference. I've not driven any other CVTs aside from my Fozzy and an Outback 3.6. So, while I'm perfectly satisfied with how mine operates I might not like someone else's programming.

 

[npaladin-2000]

The Forester we bought in 2014 is the first non-MT daily driver I've had. Yes, there is a slight delay when you want it to "downshift" but not much different than any traditional AT I've driven IMHO.

I know what to expect from the CVT; it revs up and holds about 5k rpm when accelerating hard, for example. Ratio changes are basically imperceivable aside from engine noise and and the whole driving experience is much smoother than a traditional AT. There are basically zero downsides to it if you approach it from the non-enthusiast standpoint. Even from my "enthusiast" standpoint I find it does what I think it should. These fake "shift" points that some manufacturers add are completely pointless and actually reduce efficiency.

They're not completely pointless, they're there to make people more comfortable with the transmission, since fewer people find an engine droning at the same RPM all the time to be acceptable. Besides, a CVT tuned the right way will "shift" from one fake ratio to another pretty quickly (the Juke I drove was particularly impressive in that regard). And sometimes you just need a level of manual control, and no one's come up with a way to "manually" control a CVT in native continuously variable mode except to put in 6-8 points in there to shift between.

 

[NutBucket]

Agreed on your points about manual control. My one criticism of the CVT I have is it only has "L". I'm used to downshifting to the proper gear going downhill and with this vehicle I simply can't.

And yes, while the engine does drone when accelerating hard that's not a common mode of operation. I'd say in normal driving I don't see the tach swing past 3k. Cruising is generally 2k or less. So, not a whole lot different than a traditional trans.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Agreed on your points about manual control. My one criticism of the CVT I have is it only has "L". I'm used to downshifting to the proper gear going downhill and with this vehicle I simply can't.

And yes, while the engine does drone when accelerating hard that's not a common mode of operation. I'd say in normal driving I don't see the tach swing past 3k. Cruising is generally 2k or less. So, not a whole lot different than a traditional trans.

In my 08 forester, with the 4 speed auto, the car redlines at least 10 times during every commute to/from work. I know It's not good for the engine to floor it, but when I'm making a left turn across 6 lanes of traffic on a very busy road to avoid waiting at a stop light ... I'm gonna floor it so I don't die

 

[NutBucket]

Ugh, that 4EAT is atrocious. We briefly owned a WRX with one (got a great deal on it used and flipped it).

My commute doesn't require large amounts of throttle; I leave the house at 5:30am so there's no traffic to contend with and in the evening traffic is heavy so there's not really any need/opportunity to do so either!

 

[BurnItDwn]

Ugh, that 4EAT is atrocious.

This is quite true.
But thus far it's been durable through all the abuse....