Rav4, CX-7 or Mitsubishi outlander

[DealDemon]

which new SUV should i get?
and why
thanks

[crikey]

RAV4 can be had with 4 or 6 cylinder, of course with the more powerful engine using more fuel. But it has Toyota name, reliability, and resale value. Some folks shopping the RAV4 commented that the interior is not up to par with the CX-7, for example. But interior styling is subjective. It can be had with a 3rd row but it will be really small and its use would likely be limited to short trips.

CX-7 exterior is more attractive to me, than the RAV4. The interior is better to me, as well. But the turbocharged 4-cylinder is not as fuel efficient as I imagined. Maybe if you keep off boost most of the time, it might be better at fuel efficiency. No 3rd row option. Same engine as Mazdaspeed 6 and Mazdaspeed 3 but tuned for crossover application. Same AWD as Mazdaspeed 6.

The fact that the Outlander is included in the list is impressive enough. I actually like this vehicle on paper and looks like a pretty solid revamp of the previous model. The warranty is better on the Outlander but the resale will not be in its favor. So, plan on keeping this for a long time should you decide to get one. Similar to the RAV4, it can be had with a 3rd row but also good for short trips only.

BTW, the CX-7 and Outlander are built in Japan. Not so sure about the RAV4, but I think the previous generation was built in Japan as well. Just pointing it out if it matters. You can also add the CR-V to the list.

These are all pretty good choices and it will be tough to decide. Test drive all 3 of them extensively. A test drive, most of the times, tips the scales. Look at the overall picture as to what delivers the best value depending on your needs. Have fun.

Here's a comparison test (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=116618) for the CX-7 and RAV4.

[Phr3sh]

CX-7 hands down.....i love the look of it and it should be a blast to drive

[number84]

i would also say CX-7...

RAV4 is too boring - styling wise
I don't trust Mitsubishi quite yet for reliability.

but that's just my opinion.

[malaco0219]

^ 1

Cx7 styling is very nice, though the engine and AWD is same as the Speed3/6, i dont think its a big deal

[thephenom]

I'd take the CX7 for better exterior and the fun drive it offers. :D

[hoob]

I'm probably going to put a deposit down on a RAV4 6cyl Limited/Leather this weekend.... I havent looked at the others, but the downsides on the RAV4 are that the interior is a bit "cheap" and overall pricier than others. But my requirements for power, reliability and resale value trump those downsides.


This month's Consumer Reports magazine takes a look at the new models in this vehicle segment, it might be worth getting a copy.

[koolah]

i am planning to lease the car cause i have my own business and i can write off as business expense

i am leaning towards the cx7 also cause of the cool looks.

[sunnybono]

which new SUV should i get?
and why
thanks

My opinion;

RAV 4: Reliable brand, cheap parts!!!

CX 7: Fairly new, don't know what to expect. Mazda parts are more expensive than the rest of the Japanese line up.

OutLander: Don't know how long Mitsubishi will last!!!!

sk

[kyoshiro]

have had 2 mitsubishi montero/pajero. the current one is a 2000 model and its still running great, the last one was the 92 and we exchanged it for the 2000.
Pretty damn reliable even with little to no maintenance (yes my family is lazy) this is in Hong Kong though, but its all made from the same factory.

[tidus888]

RAV4.. i'd say reliable and nicely built =)

[*pgguy*]

Check out this website for video comparison review of 6 compact SUVs. No outlander though.
http://www.drivingtelevision.ca/

[pandaharo]

+1 for RAV4.

I have the previous gen and it's built like a rock and I've driven it a problem free 120+ kms. The only thing that will stop me from getting the new RAV4 is the RDX because it has NAVI avaliable and a sportier drive. CX-7 or the Outlander never made it onto my radar b/c most people I know are getting rid or have gotten rid of their mazdas and mitsubishis.

[iam_immigrant]

Yeah I was just about to say if you're considering CX-7 then why not the Acura RDX. Similarly priced but IMO nicer looking inside and out.

[deejayspinz]

My vote for the Rav4 - hands down. Biased? Yes. I own an 07 v6 sport and its a great vehicle to drive. Interior - I like it better, but as others said, its subjective. In the case of the sport, its a more tough resliant cloth like interior - great for kids.

As for performance and handling, if your into this, the V6 rav has oodles of power and I bet it'll blow the socks off the CX-7 and Mistsu. I've driven the CX-7 already, but not the latest Mitsu. Also, dont let the V6 make you think that it's a gas guzzler. Do some research and compare - you will be amazed to find the mileage of this V6 to be better than most SUV's out there. It comes very close to the Honda CRV....

[The_Professor]

I'd go for the CX-7. It'll certainly be the most fun to drive of the bunch, and Mazda has quite good resale value as of late (The Star had an article last week-end indicating that Kelley Blue Book rates top three manufacturers for resale are Toyota, Honda and Mazda, ahead of BMW, Audi, etc.). I really like the RAV4 but you do pay quite a bit more than the other two. I don't have any experience with Mitsubishi so I cannot comment, but I don't like the idea of buying a car in it's first year of production.

[Beradon]

Mitsubishi Outlander: great features included for the price, rear gate can be lowered flat for easy loading, plus incredible warranty.

Rav4: good reliability, expensive, still has rear spare attached to back. Rear door swings opens instead of lifting overhead and opens to wrong way of sidewalk.

CX-7: still a mazda/ford, uses premium gas, expensive and reliability is not up to par with Rav4 or even Mits.

[baboo]

Mitsubishi Outlander: great features included for the price, rear gate can be lowered flat for easy loading, plus incredible warranty.

Rav4: good reliability, expensive, still has rear spare attached to back. Rear door swings opens instead of lifting overhead and opens to wrong way of sidewalk.

CX-7: still a mazda/ford, uses premium gas, expensive and reliability is not up to par with Rav4 or even Mits.


^^^ Finally....someone who knows and have respect for Mitsu.

I don't understand why the general public have this doubt towards Mitsu, I mean, they do build good vehicle, they just suck at running business and had made some bad business decisions....But still, they make good and reliable vehicle. And with this new outlander, I can see that they are really trying hard to change their image and start focusing on features general public wants, and I really do think they are turning the corner this time.

As for Mazda...geez...just because they change their styling and made some good looking sexy car in the last few years, all of the sudden, ppl thinks their reliability is at par with Toyota ....

Anyways....enuf ranting.

As much as I have confidence in Mitsu's build. I will not go for a first year production vehicle, like the a previous poster said. And between the RAV4 and CX-7, I will proab go for the RAV4, because of its reliability. But it is a close call tho..

[cipher]

^^^ Finally....someone who knows and have respect for Mitsu.

I don't understand why the general public have this doubt towards Mitsu, I mean, they do build good vehicle, they just suck at running business and had made some bad business decisions....But still, they make good and reliable vehicle. And with this new outlander, I can see that they are really trying hard to change their image and start focusing on features general public wants, and I really do think they are turning the corner this time.

As for Mazda...geez...just because they change their styling and made some good looking sexy car in the last few years, all of the sudden, ppl thinks their reliability is at par with Toyota ....

Anyways....enuf ranting.

As much as I have confidence in Mitsu's build. I will not go for a first year production vehicle, like the a previous poster said. And between the RAV4 and CX-7, I will proab go for the RAV4, because of its reliability. But it is a close call tho..


My issue with buying a Mitsubishi is the financial viability of the company. They're doing pretty poor in North America and if they decide to pull out of the market here, you're going to have vehicle with nobody to service it.

[number84]

Yeah I was just about to say if you're considering CX-7 then why not the Acura RDX. Similarly priced but IMO nicer looking inside and out.

i agree...if you are going to go with CX-7, i would definitely consider the RDX...actually i was all set to buy the RDX but then came the Infiniti EX35 (which comes out late this year)....never ending i know...

[thephenom]

i agree...if you are going to go with CX-7, i would definitely consider the RDX...actually i was all set to buy the RDX but then came the Infiniti EX35 (which comes out late this year)....never ending i know...

Unless you REALLY like the luxury, the extra $7k for the RDX is far from being a competitor IMO.

[malaco0219]

i agree...if you are going to go with CX-7, i would definitely consider the RDX...actually i was all set to buy the RDX but then came the Infiniti EX35 (which comes out late this year)....never ending i know...

I'm not sure about Acura, but heres what i see

CX - 7
Same engine as MS3 + MS6
Mazda maintenance is expensive

Acura
RDX is pretty much a pumped up CR-V
RDX is more expensive fully loaded compared to a CX - 7

Although Acura is a higher end company, the Mazda CX - 7 is pretty good when loaded with a good interior and exterior as well. I'm not a fan boy of either company, and ultimately i think it comes down to insurance for each car and the gas consumption if i were to choose.

Here is the stats for the RDX from Roand and Track

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/Acura_RDX_data_panel.pdf

Very impressive,0-60 in 6.3 seconds.
However, Acura stats its fuel economy is 12.something on local, and 9.3 on highway, thats quite a lot. I havent checked up on the CX-7 though

Any one know where RDX is made?

[Anessa]

^ Ohio on a new and totally separate building platform from the TL and Accord (if any haters wanted to call it a TL mutt).

[number84]

Unless you REALLY like the luxury, the extra $7k for the RDX is far from being a competitor IMO.

not quite $7,000 more

CX-7 AWD + GT + Luxury Package = $38,195
RDX Base = $41,000

the above would be what i would compare since the RDX Base comes fully loaded without the Navigation...i guess there are few features in the GT + Luxury Package not in the RDX (like keyless entry and start)

so, yes the question is the roughly $3000 worth it in name and luxury?

[malaco0219]

not quite $7,000 more

CX-7 AWD + GT + Luxury Package = $38,195
RDX Base = $41,000

the above would be what i would compare since the RDX Base comes fully loaded without the Navigation...i guess there are few features in the GT + Luxury Package not in the RDX (like keyless entry and start)

so, yes the question is the roughly $3000 worth it in name and luxury?

hows gas on CX - 7?

[thephenom]

not quite $7,000 more

CX-7 AWD + GT + Luxury Package = $38,195
RDX Base = $41,000

the above would be what i would compare since the RDX Base comes fully loaded without the Navigation...i guess there are few features in the GT + Luxury Package not in the RDX (like keyless entry and start)

so, yes the question is the roughly $3000 worth it in name and luxury?
That's a comparison for apples to apples, but not everyone want apples (leather seat, added luxuries) and some rather stick with oranges (basic cloth seats, etc).

[thephenom]

hows gas on CX - 7?

12.7/9 City/HWY on FWD
12.9/9.2 on AWD

[ggweci]

12.7/9 City/HWY on FWD
12.9/9.2 on AWD

And it only takes premium if I'm correct.

[thephenom]

And it only takes premium if I'm correct.

Same with the RDX due to the turbocharger. ;)

[malaco0219]

And it only takes premium if I'm correct.

91 or 93? i know MS6 and MS3 take 93, so meaning 94 here, or 91 with the octane booster (friend of mine has a couple packs in the back of his MS6 as back up if he cant find sunoco)


I personally see the RDX as a hyped up CR-V, but though CX - 7 is less expensive and both are around the same on gas, i would pay the extra to get the RDX, more prestige to me in my opinion.

[thephenom]

91 or 93? i know MS6 and MS3 take 93, so meaning 94 here, or 91 with the octane booster (friend of mine has a couple packs in the back of his MS6 as back up if he cant find sunoco)


I personally see the RDX as a hyped up CR-V, but though CX - 7 is less expensive and both are around the same on gas, i would pay the extra to get the RDX, more prestige to me in my opinion.
91 and 94 price difference isn't that bad, the RDX does have a lower compression ratio, so I wouldn't be surprised if you can use 91 just fine.

[Beradon]

My issue with buying a Mitsubishi is the financial viability of the company. They're doing pretty poor in North America and if they decide to pull out of the market here, you're going to have vehicle with nobody to service it.I'm sure if they were to leave the market (unlikely) there would be agreements with Chrysler(for example) service centers to honor the remaining warranties.

Anyone remembered what happened to warranties when Daewoo took an exit out of Canada a few years ago?

[ggweci]

Same with the RDX due to the turbocharger. ;)

Yep, that's true.

For these types of cars, I'd go with the Rav4 or even the CRV over the Mitsu or Acura (too much $$$). I prefer the CRV, with the only drawback being no V6 option, but for a city vehicle it's not too much of a concern. I really like the Rav4 V6, but the interior can't compare to the Honda's.

[hoob]

I'm sure if they were to leave the market (unlikely)


They've already done that once, in relatively recent history....

[number84]

That's a comparison for apples to apples, but not everyone want apples (leather seat, added luxuries) and some rather stick with oranges (basic cloth seats, etc).

fair enough...but how else would you compare it??...can't simply say it's $7000 more just for luxury...which it's not.

[malaco0219]

I'm sure if they were to leave the market (unlikely) there would be agreements with Chrysler(for example) service centers to honor the remaining warranties.

Anyone remembered what happened to warranties when Daewoo took an exit out of Canada a few years ago?

I'm not familiar with Korean cars, i didnt even realize they left :D

[pandaharo]

Any one know where RDX is made?

Produced in USA.

[hoob]

I'm not familiar with Korean cars, i didnt even realize they left :D

They're all Chevrolets now (Aveo, Optra), Suzuki Verona in the US, etc...

[Beradon]

They've already done that once, in relatively recent history....They left the Canadian market eons ago but they continued to establish themselves in the US. They're back again and are focusing on becoming a serious contender here.

[airodus]

arghh i hate plugging the RDX cause i hate most hondas, but it is NOT a souped up CR-V. my dad went through the same decision between the RDX and CR-V.

The RDX won hands down. Less turbo lag, better handling, much better AWD system (as owners of Subaru and Audi, we think SH-AWD is superior and the CX-7 system is kind of meh). Very comfortable seats and interior. Also a pretty good value when you consider it comes pretty well loaded on the base model.

The big kicker was that the CX-7 is a little hard to shoulder check because of how the windows are shaped. A lower car can easily hide in your blind spot and a quick shoulder check would not reveal it. My dad found this out on the test drive. He knew there was a car in his blind spot (saw it on approach), but for the life of him was not able to see the car by shoulder checking (granted my dad is like 5'3", but he doesn't have that prob in any other car).

[thephenom]

fair enough...but how else would you compare it??...can't simply say it's $7000 more just for luxury...which it's not.
But the 7k is just for luxury, there are no performance difference between the CX7 GS and GT, so the extra you pay is just for add-in luxury items. If you put the CX7 GS trim with 4WD, so that's $34k. And that should be the base comparison against the RDX. While it's not fair since you don't get the luxury leather seats, nav, sunroof, fancy audio etc, but these add-in luxury items aren't necessary a value to every buyer (unless they want it).

If those are necessary for a buyer, then yeah, you pit it against the GT with luxury package and compare for RDX. If it's not, the base GS model should be perfectly fine to compare against all the competitors.

[malaco0219]

arghh i hate plugging the RDX cause i hate most hondas, but it is NOT a souped up CR-V. my dad went through the same decision between the RDX and CR-V.

The RDX won hands down. Less turbo lag, better handling, much better AWD system (as owners of Subaru and Audi, we think SH-AWD is superior and the CX-7 system is kind of meh). Very comfortable seats and interior. Also a pretty good value when you consider it comes pretty well loaded on the base model.

The big kicker was that the CX-7 is a little hard to shoulder check because of how the windows are shaped. A lower car can easily hide in your blind spot and a quick shoulder check would not reveal it. My dad found this out on the test drive. He knew there was a car in his blind spot (saw it on approach), but for the life of him was not able to see the car by shoulder checking (granted my dad is like 5'3", but he doesn't have that prob in any other car).

Care to share your experience with the SH-AWD?

[thephenom]

Care to share your experience with the SH-AWD?

From what I read, the SH-AWD system from Honda/Acura, you can transfer more torque to the rear wheels than you can on the CX7. So I guess that's where the performance difference comes in.

[number84]

From what I read, the SH-AWD system from Honda/Acura, you can transfer more torque to the rear wheels than you can on the CX7. So I guess that's where the performance difference comes in.

plus with SH-AWD you can transfer 100% of the available torque in the rear wheels to either rear wheel...which really helps in cornering

[thephenom]

plus with SH-AWD you can transfer 100% of the available torque in the rear wheels to either rear wheel...which really helps in cornering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SH-AWD

70% ;)

[number84]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SH-AWD

70% ;)

i think you're a little bit off.

i said "100% of the available torque in the rear wheels to either rear wheel" (taken from Acura site)

the wiki says it "can power the rear wheels with up to 70% of the engine torque"

different statements. the ability to transfer the torque to either rear wheel helps in cornering.

[thephenom]

i think you're a little bit off.

i said "100% of the available torque in the rear wheels to either rear wheel" (taken from Acura site)

the wiki says it "can power the rear wheels with up to 70% of the engine torque"

different statements. the ability to transfer the torque to either rear wheel helps in cornering.

Ah yes, my mistake. So really, it can transfer 70% of all total torque to ONE of the rear wheels.

[malaco0219]

Good system, lame name =]

[hello99]

Anyone have the best (APA type) prices available for these vehicles? That would make a difference in the final decision I think.

[ES_Revenge]

Not reading all the posts here but just an opinion of these I would definitely say the CX-7 out of the choices. The only one I've driven a lot out of these, however, is the Outlander. Outlander is pretty nice, yes, and has the first nice interior for a Mitsu in years but I'd still say the CX-7. Rav4 I can't stand it so there's my $0.02 anyway.

arghh i hate plugging the RDX cause i hate most hondas, but it is NOT a souped up CR-V.

Wow, I'm saying the exact same thing, lol! I hate most Hondas but if the RDX goes into this decision I'd have to say the RDX over the others. And I agree with the CR-V as well, the RDX is not just a glamorised CR-V (as the CSX is to the Civic). Though I don't like most Hondas I have to admit the EM clutchpacks [in their SH/AWD systems] are really quite something. That system alone would have me picking the RDX over the Outlander, CX-7, Rav4 or CR-V.

[lumlum1013]

Mazda CX7 uses 91 Octane, only Mazdaspeed 6 requires 93 octane..
I believe RDX uses 91 Octane also...


Both CX7 and RDX looks very nice and unique...
but like others have mentioned, Mazda's reliability isn't as great
as Toyota or Honda....

IMO, test drive all the vehicle u've mentioned....
if you still wanna do some more research,
visit drivingtelevision.ca and see what the reviews are
from their tv shows.

[kyoshiro]

mazdas arent all that reliable these days is a fact. *stares at the 2005 MPV in parking lot*

[koolah]

thanks for all the inputs folks
keep them coming
very interesting indeed.

another one i spotted just today and it looks real nice
that is the Hyundai santa fe
anyone have any opnion on Hyundai vehicles

[DavidY]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned about the turbo lag on the CX-7. This lag was mentioned in the Driving Television review.

Dave

[malaco0219]

thanks for all the inputs folks
keep them coming
very interesting indeed.

another one i spotted just today and it looks real nice
that is the Hyundai santa fe
anyone have any opnion on Hyundai vehicles

I dont know about the new ones, but the old ones arent that good, my teacher had one and he said it's a joke.

Whats your budget, maybe we can have a good selection for you.

[koolah]

budget about 30-35 k
and i am leasing it.

[malaco0219]

budget about 30-35 k
and i am leasing it.

you need a SUV for moving things? personally i would choose SUV cause they eat up quite a bit of gas. However, if you're interested in SUV, this is what i suggest

Reliability - RAV 4
Good looking - RDX (Though out of your budget) or CX-7
Tech and gadget - RDX without a doubt.

[DavidY]

The 2007 Outlander does the 0-60mph in 8.3 seconds. Braking distance from 60-0 is 132 feet. Overall gas mileage is 19 mpg as reported by CR. These figures are among the better ones in the small SUV category.

Most compact SUVs are in the high 9 or low 10 second range for 0-60. If my memory is the 2007 RAV4 V6 does the 0-60 in 7.6 seconds.

Too bad that the resale value on the Outlanders are below average and that the number of dealerships is very limited. The LS 4WD is nicely priced and featured at around $28K.

Dave

[JackyGor]

I would choose RDX. Think of it as a a sedan with A LOT of clearance. RDX looks better in my opinion. It is also faster and handles like a sedan. However, if you want to tow stuff with it, RDX is pretty bad at that.

review...
http://www.luxurycarcanada.com/features/features_articles.php?fetch_feature_article=07_acu ra_rdx_turbo_jp_.php&pass_title=2007%20Acura%20RDX%20Turbo

but i suggest EX35 :D

http://www.nissannews.com/multimedia/concept/2008/800px/08%20EX%20Concept.jpg

http://www.nissannews.com/multimedia/concept/2008/800px/09%20EX%20Concept.jpg

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/04/ny07_infinitiex---19.jpg

http://www.thecarlounge.net/gallery/albums//Events/International%20Auto%20Shows/New%20York/2007/338.jpg

http://www.thecarlounge.net/gallery/albums//Events/International%20Auto%20Shows/New%20York/2007/339.jpg

http://www.thecarlounge.net/gallery/albums//Events/International%20Auto%20Shows/New%20York/2007/340.jpg

soooo niceee....

[koolah]

wow
thats awesome
how much for that thing.

btw i am getting a suv cause my vw golf is just too small for my newborn
and i dont want to get a van.

[hoob]

Most compact SUVs are in the high 9 or low 10 second range for 0-60. If my memory is the 2007 RAV4 V6 does the 0-60 in 7.6 seconds.


RAV4 6cyl is 6.7sec spec, and 6.3 seconds in ideal conditions for Car & Driver.

[ES_Revenge]

wow
thats awesome
how much for that thing.

btw i am getting a suv cause my vw golf is just too small for my newborn
and i dont want to get a van.

How big is your newborn exactly??? :eek:

j/k, I think I get what you mean (all the accessories and stroller and stuff, lol) but that was a funny statement taken literally...

[malaco0219]

RAV4 6cyl is 6.7sec spec, and 6.3 seconds in ideal conditions for Car & Driver.


Well, i guess they can do it since they have good drivers there. I was surprised the RDX got 6.3, i never really thought SUVs could do 0-60 in the early 6 seconds

[Anessa]

the EX35 interior looks like the bridge of the Enterprise :D .

[ES_Revenge]

Well, i guess they can do it since they have good drivers there.
Not really that much to it is there? These are all automatic or CVT equipped vehicles no? Just a little brake torquing and foot on the floor and off you go. Sometimes there's more to it to control to get the right amount of wheel spin or minimise torque steer--all dependent on the vehicle of course, but not that difficult. What is difficult (in real world driving conditions) is getting cool dry air, a nice sticky road surface, new but worked in tyres which are up to temperature, low fuel load, light to no head wind or better yet a good tailwind, etc. Things you can't control but they like to have relatively ideal for the days they road test the cars on in the big publications...

I was surprised the RDX got 6.3, i never really thought SUVs could do 0-60 in the early 6 seconds

Okay there you're joking right? Ever heard of any of these? (There might be others I haven't listed here as well...)

6. Infiniti FX45? (~6.3)
5. BMW X5 4.8is? (~6.0)
4. Chevy Trailblazer SS (~5.5)
3. Porsche Cayenne Turbo? (~5.0)
2. Porsche Cayenne Turbo S? (~4.8)
1. Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8? (~4.5)

(Wow it seems the longer the name the faster the SUV! LOL!)

[malaco0219]

Not really that much to it is there? These are all automatic or CVT equipped vehicles no? Just a little brake torquing and foot on the floor and off you go. Sometimes there's more to it to control to get the right amount of wheel spin or minimise torque steer--all dependent on the vehicle of course, but not that difficult. What is difficult (in real world driving conditions) is getting cool dry air, a nice sticky road surface, new but worked in tyres which are up to temperature, low fuel load, light to no head wind or better yet a good tailwind, etc. Things you can't control but they like to have relatively ideal for the days they road test the cars on in the big publications...



Okay there you're joking right? Ever heard of any of these? (There might be others I haven't listed here as well...)

6. Infiniti FX45? (~6.3)
5. BMW X5 4.8is? (~6.0)
4. Chevy Trailblazer SS (~5.5)
3. Porsche Cayenne Turbo? (~5.0)
2. Porsche Cayenne Turbo S? (~4.8)
1. Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8? (~4.5)

(Wow it seems the longer the name the faster the SUV! LOL!)

Haha, dont mind me, i'm not a fan of SUV's, thats why =] I seldomly read reviews on SUVs

[Azxster]

The RDX is ridiculously priced... if I was going to pay 41K, I might as well splurge for the full size SUVs like MDX, RX330, etc... What is your beef with Honda and the CR-V?

[laptop-tech]

I own (hummm... lease actually) an Outlander and love the car.

Pros :

Lower cost than ANY comparable suv
Not too big, nor too small
Packed with features, even on the basic models
5 year bumper to bumper


Cons :

Poor soundproofing
Poor breaking (weird ABS)


I've had mine for about 1.5 years and love it. At the end of the lease, I might even buy it. Last time I went to the dealership for an oil change, they had a few end-of-lease Outlanders in the lot with high mileage (like 150 K in 2 years) and I was getting itch with the prices....lol.

[koolah]

i think at the stage i am leaning towards to RAV4 just cause of the name.

there is one SUV i am looking at now
that is the Pontiac Torrent. Anyone have any input on this car?

thanks

[Beradon]

i think at the stage i am leaning towards to RAV4 just cause of the name.

there is one SUV i am looking at now
that is the Pontiac Torrent. Anyone have any input on this car?

thanksTorrent only have a V6 engine so you'll pay more for gas than a RAV4. I feel the absolute bargain here is the Outlander.

[kyoshiro]

I own (hummm... lease actually) an Outlander and love the car.

Pros :

Lower cost than ANY comparable suv
Not too big, nor too small
Packed with features, even on the basic models
5 year bumper to bumper


Cons :

Poor soundproofing
Poor breaking (weird ABS)


I've had mine for about 1.5 years and love it. At the end of the lease, I might even buy it. Last time I went to the dealership for an oil change, they had a few end-of-lease Outlanders in the lot with high mileage (like 150 K in 2 years) and I was getting itch with the prices....lol.

The new ones may of fixed your cons, i do know that they slapped in a traction control in the new one which may not of been in the old one, but anyhow the selectable 2wd/4wd/4wdllc is actually a pretty reliable system, has been around for years (family's old 92 pajero/montero had it so definetly before then). But yeah the new Outlander = throwing in pajero's reliable technology into the frame.

[BD006]

I'm a big fan of the value you get with the Outlander, and had been reading up on it quite a bit.

The compromises with it compared to say a CR-V or Rav4 are possibly fit and finish, long-term reliability and fuel economy.

[ES_Revenge]

there is one SUV i am looking at now
that is the Pontiac Torrent. Anyone have any input on this car?

One thing I don't like about the Torrent/Equinox is the engine in it... It uses a GM 3400 (which is a fine pushrod V6 engine, now that the LIM problems are more worked out) however it's not an LA1 (normal made-in-Tonawanda) 3400. It uses the code LNJ 3400 engine which is... Made in China :( Additionally the 185hp 3400 is not really in the same power class as the RAV4 (V6), CX-7, or RDX.

The Torrent is supposedly getting a GXP version though which looks like it is going to get the LY7 motor in it (3.6L DOHC, 260+ hp) which is the same engine used in the Cadillac CTS, STS (base), Pontiac G6 GTP (07+), and Saturn Aura XR. Of course the GXP is not available yet and will have premium pricing anyway...

Another vechile I thought of (just randomly throwing this out there btw) that fits into this category is the Suzuki Grand Vitara. Don't know what it's priced like or if you've considered it, but I've driven them and they seem relatively nice anyway. Kinda underpowered in this company as well though--it's also 'only' 185hp...

[DavidY]

Another vechile I thought of (just randomly throwing this out there btw) that fits into this category is the Suzuki Grand Vitara. Don't know what it's priced like or if you've considered it, but I've driven them and they seem relatively nice anyway. Kinda underpowered in this company as well though--it's also 'only' 185hp...

The reviews on the 2007 Suzuki Grand Vitara are all over the map. CR didn't like it very much. Worse than average reliability on redesigned model. Average satisfaction. Depreciation - insufficient data. Comments by CR: rear seat is fairly roomy, 2.7L V6 is "noisy and sluggish (0-60 in 9.5 sec with auto) and yields an unimpressive 18 mpg." Auto isn't too responsive. Vague steering. Reluctant, but secure handling. Stiff and jittery ride.

However, the Consumer Guide rated it as a 2007 Best Buy.

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/new-compact-suv-prices-reviews.htm

[hoob]

Test drove a few more vehicles in this category today, I'll add my impressions. Yes I drove them all in one day, very busy afternoon! Ford and Hyundai salespeople tagged along, but Honda and Mazda just gave us the keys and made us promise to bring them back :D

1. 2007 Hyundai Santa Fe: competant, but nothing more. The engine is peppy but doesn't seem like the 240hp advertised. Interior dash layout was better than I expected. Looked at the new Veracruz as well (I'd never heard of it??!?!) and it seems quite nice as a MDX-style SUV.

2. Mazda CX-7.... Oh my oh my, what a blast to drive. Very roomy and very comfortable inside. Everything is layed out nice, but the center console looks odd without the Nav option (filler plates, etc.) The engine was fun but off the line was crappy, but over 30km very solid and zen-like. All the forums seem abuzz with reports of fuel economy much crappier than expected, yikes!

3. Ford Edge.. Nice inside (at least the top-of-line demo I drove) but handles very much like a previous-generation Explorer, and similar power. I was really disappointed, was hoping for better things. Felt very top-heavy and manatee-like, and nothing at all like the CX-7 which is its stable-mate in the Ford-Mazda lineup. The front seats were way too short (thigh) and soft, even for a 10K km demo driver that's seen many people at the helm.

4. Honda CR-V.. Very well executed redesign and enough room even for a big guy like me. Damn they need a V6 in this platform though, no up and go at any speed point, WOT or otherwise. Rear seat layout a bit odd how they collapse and roll forward. Trip computer a bit weird, with the fuel efficiency meter useless (could not find any mode settings that might improve its behaviour.)

Also test drove the Fusion (OK, but smaller than I expected) and the Mazda6 I4 M/T (just for fun, to try a Mazda shifter for the first time in something NOT of 323-vintage.)

[can2000]

Good review for the Outlander 2007.
http://autos.yahoo.com/mitsubishi_outlander-reviews_user/

&

10 Year/160K KM powertrain warranty
5 Year/100K KM Bumper to Bumper warranty
5 Year/Unlimited KM roadside assistance.

[slothy@cutey]

Hyundai Veracruz is a beauty. Joy to drive too!

Total rip-off of the Lexus RX-350... and a bit of the Volvo XC90... but it's performance is pretty well up there with all the bells and whistles. It even beat out both the Lexus & Volvo in safety/crash star ratings. Never thought a Hyundai could get this good... Another plus- it's a 7-seater but not that huge...

[bionicbadger]

No one mentioned subaru tribeca? You can import a fully loaded one with leather & navigation from the states for less than $35K Canadian. The 2007 ones are supposed to take premium but you can run regular (though with even worse milage), but the new 2008s use regular (You just have to wait until septemberish to be able to import).

[Beradon]

No one mentioned subaru tribeca? You can import a fully loaded one with leather & navigation from the states for less than $35K Canadian. The 2007 ones are supposed to take premium but you can run regular (though with even worse milage), but the new 2008s use regular (You just have to wait until septemberish to be able to import).Will the 2008 be redesigned? The current 07 front fascia is butt ugly.

[baboo]

Will the 2008 be redesigned? The current 07 front fascia is butt ugly.

yeah, the 08 model got a face lift. But it looks kinda bland tho. I actually prefer the 07 look, it's ugly but original.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/news.cfm/newsid/2070404.005/country/jcf/Subaru/2008-subaru-b9-tribeca-at-new-york

[sixer]

Suvs are overpriced and pollute the environment. Not to mention no more room then sedan or small wagon.

Get a fuel efficient car. If you need the storage room, get a minivan, better gas mileage as well.

[Beradon]

yeah, the 08 model got a face lift. But it looks kinda bland tho. I actually prefer the 07 look, it's ugly but original.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/news.cfm/newsid/2070404.005/country/jcf/Subaru/2008-subaru-b9-tribeca-at-new-york

thanks for the link. The '08 looks a hell of alot better than 07. Not bland at all but I guess these kinds of things are subjective.

Now if they could only make a lighter & smaller version of the Tribeca with a fuel efficient 4-cylinder engine.