Personal picks: Small SUVs

In the August issue, we tested several right-sized SUVs that represent where many buyers are heading: smaller and more fuel efficient. Among this group, the empirical standout was the redesigned Subaru Forester. It not only bested the other small SUVs in this month's small SUV Ratings (available to subscribers), its turbocharged and nonturbocharged versions also leapfrogged over the six- and four-cylinder versions of the Toyota RAV4.

We also tested the new Nissan Rogue and the four-cylinder Mitsubishi Outlander, plus we evaluated a couple old-school SUVs, the Kia Sorento and the redesigned Jeep Liberty.

To look behind the published ratings and road test, we offer personal insights on our picks for downsized SUVs:

Tom Mutchler: Even though I’m a big fan of wagons and hatchbacks, the Forester makes all of those cars in Subaru’s line-up redundant. (Same goes for the less-than-optimized Tribeca SUV.) The Forester has more room inside than an Outback wagon, and if you forego alloy wheels and heated seats, it’s less money than the smaller Outback Sport. You’re not giving up much in fuel economy or driving characteristics, either.

The Forester appeals to me because it is a refreshingly honest car. It stresses substance— like fantastic visibility, the ride/handling balance, interior space, and crash-test results— over flash. No, it doesn’t get the fuel economy of a Toyota RAV4 and it’s not as well trimmed as a Honda CR-V. But I’ll take the savings and get the more practical Forester.

One more thing: this month’s test revealed an overlooked player in this market, the Mitsubishi Outlander. It got me to the airport in an early morning snowstorm without any drama, and the huge interior easily swallowed a large laundry dryer, aided by its clever little tailgate. The steering is tuned toward sporty, and the newly-available four-cylinder is willing (if not overly powerful). While it’s likely to depreciate more than a three-year-old RAV4/ CR-V/Forester, the Outlander could make be a used-car bargain down the road.

Rick Small: The popular small SUV market is growing rapidly. These right-sized vehicles have many advantages over the older truck-based models, such as better ride, handling, and fuel efficiency. They’re also very roomy for their size; folding rear seats only add to there usefulness. Some offer third-row seats but they are mostly for small kids. The new Subaru Forester is larger and much improved over the previous model. The turbo version is more responsive and better equipped than the base, but gets two fewer mpg. Subarus all come with standard AWD, so they get less mpg than most base vehcles in this class —almost all competing models also offer FWD version. The Honda CR-V is reliable and gets better fuel economy. But I need a 3,500-pound towing capacity, which leaves the four-cylinder models off my list. The Hyundai Santa Fe and Toyota RAV4 offer V6s that will tow and the new Mitsubishi Outlander has a standard V6 that can also tow the weight I haul. Of these, the Outlander is the sportiest of the group and it fits my 6' 3" frame the best as well—although my wife complains about the lack of leg room. The RAV4 is a good choice and gets good mileage even with the V6 (22 mpg), but the driver’s seat is a bit small and flat for me. My favorite, though, is still the Nissan Murano (admittedly a bit more expensive). But it’s quicker, bigger and sportier than most of these and still manages to get 19 mpg. The new redesign is not quite as sporty as the old one, but it rides better and has more safety features.

For more on this small SUVs group, read the road tests and watch our review videos.

Comments

[Dick Campagna]

We tow a car behind our motorhome and had been doing so with a stick-shift '98 Forester. We liked the car but, (1) I hated the "feel" of the engine; (2) I hated the (common) clutch chatter; (3) a (common) failed right rear wheel bearing almost ruined a trip (the left side bearing had previously failed); and, (4) as mileage approached 70K miles, I was on pins'n'needles waiting for the head gaskets (two on boxer engines!) to start leaking, as reported by many others on the internet.

So we sold the Forester, replacing it with an '08 Honda CR-V rather than an '09 Forester. Why? The '09 Forester's engine still "feels" funny; and as far as I know, problems with clutch chatter, wheel bearings and leaking head gaskets haven't been addressed except to add a bottle of radiator stop-leak at the factory ... a real "Band-Aid" approach. And the boxer engine still "feels" funny.

We absolutely LOVE our new CR-V, by the way.

[Michael]

I find it strange how Subaru still takes flak for their AWD supposedly sapping fuel efficiency when the base Forester (especially with a manual transmission) is one of the most fuel-efficient small SUVs on the market.

I do agree, however, that it does somewhat tread on the toes of Subaru's other vehicles--perhaps more so in the US than in places where the regular Legacy wagon is still available.

[Paul Rivers]

Of the top choices for small suv's (RAV4, CR-V, Forester) I'm so happy to see that one of them still managed to have good visibility! I was pretty disappointed by that when I sat in a RAV4, and judging by the windows I assume the CR-V is similar...now if the forester only either got another 2 mpg, or it came in a higher mileage hybrid version I'd just buy one today. :-)

[Michael]

Dick--I really like the CR-V too. I think it's a bit of a stretch, though, to assume that the same problems would affect 98 and 09 Foresters. Post-2000 Subaru 2.5L engines are of a different design that don't suffer from the internal head gasket failures of 96-99 engines. Wheel bearing failures would not normally have been that common (my 96 Legacy has had one bearing replacement in 151K miles) and repeated failures of the same bearing can be a sign of an improper or incomplete repair.

Paul--visibility is one of the first things I notice when I sit in a car with thick pillars or high sills. To my mind, small windows and curved hatches kind of defeat the purpose of a small SUV in the first place. I'm curious to see how long the current trend lasts before consumers and manufacturers realise that styling and structural integrity really don't have to compromise visibility.

[James Haberly]

The rumor is that the 2009 Forester would have come with the Legacy/Outback 5-speed automatic if Subaru had the capacity to build enough of them. With the Toyota Venza and the next Audi A4 Avant both coming with 6-speed automatics Subaru has some work to catch up.

[Dan]

We test drove all three, and drove home the RAV4. The Forester would have been our second choice. The CRV's curved back made it useless, we might as well just buy an Accord. Ultimately we feat the RAV4 was better built with fewer cheap plastics, it looked better, got better gas mileage and was drove more refined, we also like the optional 3rd row seating. A turbo charged Forester would have been fun but we couldn't get over the cheap Subaru interiors.

[Dan]

As an auto mechanic I have some advice that may seem blasphemous to some....You do NOT need 4WD. A FWD vehicle with a good set of snows will get you anywhere in inclement weather. It is my observation that only about 10% of people who buy 4WD suv's of any size really need them. Save yourself the money and get better mpg. My 2007 Honda Fit swallows luggage whole, gets pretty great mpg (35-41, depending on conditions) and goes great in the snow.

[Michael]

Dan--Last year alone, I used a towing strap and a Subaru to pull out four cars that were stuck in the snow. I could have tripled that number the year before had I owned a towing strap at the time. FWD with winter tires is fine for moderate winter conditions, but for serious snow and ice it's just not sufficient.

Back to small SUVs--I would have been interested in seeing if the Forester (or other car-based small SUVs) could make it up CR's rock hill. I know they lack a low range and wouldn't keep up with a Jeep, but Subaru put a big emphasis on offroad ability when they introduced this redesign, taking the Forester up dizzying slopes and on two wheels over offset undulations.

[Clairisse VanDeMark]

My job takes me on poor quality roads that often need a higher clearance, but I only need to transport myself. No towing, large tool capacity, passenger room or high end power needed, just the highest gas mileage and reliability available that is also able to traverse rougher roads. I chock up a lot of miles, both highway and gravel. That said, these small SUVs are appealing. The Forester 09 has increased clearance, but is it enough? Are there better options out there?

[JoJo]

Hey guys-- I'm buying my 4th Subaru wagon!! Back in NH I used to carry a tow strap,jumpers and a gadget called a traction ramp. I used to help a lot FWD's out of the snow and deep slush. Not once did I have to use any for my Legacy wagon.I moved to an area north of Seattle-- brought the wagon, then decided I didn't need AWD and intended to go with Honda civic or accord. I CHANGED MY MIND after the winter out here with snow,snow snow,no plows, no sand , no salt. I put all the winter stuff back in my car and started helping FWDs out of the snow etc... I know I willget less MPG but I think it's worth it.
Happy Driving!!!

[babka]

well I love my '98 Tracker with selectable 4WD - great for gas mileage, plenty of cargo room, and if it were not rusting out from under me (upstate NY, no garage) I had been planning to be buried in it. Great rear visibility, sensible as an Oxford shoe, and invisible - the clown car amidst the green/resale/AWD vs. 4WD quandries. Putt putt putt up and down the steepest icey mountains...I will drive others in my search for a successor, but am leaning toward the used market and a V6 version of my little car-mule "Pearl". (sigh)

[Wheel Bearing]

I love Small SUVs
They are MUCH better than the Wagons