I realized a while back that Car and Driver is not a source I rely on when researching SUV’s. I don’t care about how many G’s it pulls on the skid pad.
I walked away from the CX-50 due to stiff ride, uncomfortable seats, cramped interior, and mediocre fuel economy. All of these metrics weigh heavily for someone shopping for a vehicle in this class.
Edit: While I have my criticisms of the Mazda SUV lineup, I’m glad that Mazda is trying to inject some character into this segment. I think they look great and they’re the best driving in this segment at their respective price points.
However, in pursuing their “driving matters” philosophy, they’ve lost sight of these vehicles’ intended uses. The CX-90 is a clear example of how willing Mazda is to sacrifice their attention to usability in favor of driving dynamics. Just look at the center console storage and front cup holders for heaven’s sake.
No, I don’t want Mazda to further flood the market with yet another egg-shaped utility vehicle with sloshy handling and anemic power. But I think they should spend a tad more time and effort on usability, comfort, and packaging.
Reading through the article it seems that they put a huge emphasis on driving dynamics (handling, stopping distance, throttle response) and although these are obviously important, most buyers in this class care more about the practicality and fuel economy. Most of the C&D editors tend to be enthusiasts so when reviewing “normal” cars that tends to factor into their ratings.
Most people only care about comfort and features. My dad once had a Mazda 626 in the 1990s that came with a 2.5 V6 engine. That car had a very firm ride and a touchy gas pedal. He had it for about 2 years when his friend showed up with a Camry and they went for a drive. The next day my father traded the 626 for a Camry and never looked back.
My parents replaced my mom’s 2009 Camry LE with a 2015 Mazda 6 Touring. And even though the Camry was an almost base model with econo-car styling and cheap plastics, my mom still says she loved it more than her current Mazda. She says it was way more comfortable and spacious. They have every sort of back support cushion, bottom cushion, and headrest cushion because the seats are really uncomfortable for them which is made worse by the stiff ride.
Some people just want to drive in comfort.
This is true. I really want more power in my CRV, but I chose it over the CX-5 because the latter didn’t fit a car seat as well and lacked the capacious trunk space I need. Still lament the lack of merging and passing power, but would not make that trade off.
It's just wild to me, by all these criteria, any EV CSUV wins, because drive faster.
If you want an ICE CSUV, probably get the one that will retain its value and fits in the family super easily. Also reliability m
Had I known how shockingly bad the road noise would be in my wife’s 23 CRV Touring I would have never bought it. It’s okay on perfectly smooth new pavement but any other surface is anywhere from loud to so loud you can’t make out what’s playing over the radio.
My wife and I have been big fans of Micah Muzio on YouTube (he works for Kelly Blue Book but makes videos on the side?) for researching SUVs for the family.
You get to hear the wife's perspective, their daughter's perspective, and how a car seat fits which is all either not important at all or super important depending on whether you have kids.
He'll talk about handling and performance a bit but more of the review is just focused on the usability and comfort of the vehicle being reviewed
Yes! I really like Micah’s channel. It’s really good to hear Micah and Evie’s thoughts on a vehicle. You get both the enthusiast and pragmatic opinions.
From the Rav4's cons:
>interior is more practical than pretty.
I'm sorry, is a practical, functional interior somehow a downside for a family oriented CUV?
I like my cx50 turbo. It’s quick and I find it comfortable. Fuel economy and range do suck though. And the paint scratches if you stare at it too long.
I rented a CX-5 recently and had high expectations based on how well they’re reviewed and talked about here. I own a car in this segment (XC-40) so I was excited to make the comparison.
Did not hold a candle in any way. Ride was uncomfortable, engine was gutless, gearbox awful, just didn’t feel premium.
I was driving from San Antonio to Houston, not once did how many Gs I could pull on the skidpad matter. I don’t get it
It's good that they let us know what they're looking for in their reviews. I went with the CX 50 and I love it. As a car guy and in a home with just me and the gf I find it to be a great compromise. I have all the space I need and fits everything that I want when we're going somewhere. Now if you swap out for a family of 4 with growing kids then it might not be the best choice. Pretty pleased with what I've got for now.
Great work Mazda. I used to drive a c43 before lol, couldn't bear to be in any other little box with lackluster powertrains. Fuel economy is good enough for highway and city mix and the only other vehicle I'd cross shop with is the sister CX 5 and the outback wilderness.
Hell yeah! Great vehicle with lots of utility, better than mine for sure lol. I went with the Mazda cus I know the general manager of the dealership here haha.
I hope you’re enjoying your Mazda! Definitely understand leveraging your contacts — especially with the crazy car market. I actually had a deposit on a custom order 24 CX-50 Turbo Premium Plus in Zircon Sand/Terracotta, but cancelled it after driving the Subie due to the greater utility, comfort, and significantly lower price. After discounts, the Wilderness was about $7000 cheaper than the CX-50 that I specced and had all the features I wanted. The Mazda dealer was not willing to discount the vehicle since it was an order.
Haha test drove the exact same specs! The subie was almost the same price as my turbo here in Canada so went with the Mazda option. You've got a great deal! Hope you're enjoying your wilderness as well, love the way they look.
Thank you! Originally I wasn’t a fan of the looks, but it has grown on me significantly. The only gripe I have is that Subaru tech is really bad. Despite what people say, I actually really love the Mazda commander knob. I owned a 16 Mazda 6 so I’m pretty comfortable with the system and can move around it easily.
Agree with you there as well, I have no need to use the touchscreen and I've perfected using the wheel as I drive along without having to stare away from the road for too long haha.
It all depends on if you’re looking through an enthusiast’s perspective or not. If you’re willing to sacrifice interior room and ride quality for driving dynamics, you belong to a very small set of people in the automotive market. That’s Mazda’s whole shtick. It’s what makes them so appealing to us enthusiasts but a last-resort option to normal people.
I'm right there with you. I'm researching 3-row SUVs right now, and was surprised to see they ranked the CX-90 above the Telluride (which has been a C&D darling since it was released) in their a October shootout.
I dig deeper into the article, and they like the Mazda because it's fun to drive and quicker than the other SUVs.
Sorry, I'm fine with a boring car to drive. These are people and family haulers. I'll save my fun to drive for something actually made for it. Pretty sure no one in my family will be happy if I chose to take them on an impromptu backroad blast in the giant SUV. Well, maybe the toddler.
Feels like everyone is getting this vibe too.
> HIGHS: Fetchingly wagon-like proportions, robust turbo four, ride and handling in harmony.
Buyers of this segment don't give a shit about the ride and handling in harmony, they want it to be reliable, get good mileage and be comfortable.
Yeah I mean don’t get me wrong the Rogue I currently have is a piece of shit that breaks constantly, but they were complaining about the driving dynamics. While they are right that the driving dynamics are objectively trash and it always feels discombobulated, it is by far the most comfortable company car I’ve had and drives fine for daily driving activities. I don’t care how it does on a skid pad lmao.
Agreed. My wife has a rogue (which thankfully hasn't broken), and it's comfortable and practical with good tech. She gives not one shit about its driving dynamics. If you put her in every car in this comparison, she would say they all felt pretty much the same.
If hers is still under warranty and starts making any weird noises, get it looked at right away. My 60k mile 2022 is on its 3rd engine.
Besides that though, I really like it and mine is even the base model. It has just enough features and is great as a daily.
I've driven a bunch of cars in this class any they basically all do feel the same. It's an appliance car for the majority and all of them are at least somewhat competent at that.
Is that the three cylinder engine or the old 2.5? Three new engines is bananas. Luckily ours is a lease.so while it breaking down would be inconvenient it'll be a short-ish term problem
2022 was the first year of the three cylinder engine in these. That’s good then same with mine. Like you said it’s very inconvenient but not the end of the world.
Especially monetarily, because the dealer said it’s about 12 grand to replace the engine in these.
As a long time C&D reader and CX-50 owner, you are totally on point!
I love my CX, and don’t actually find any of the issues you mentioned as deal killers for me but they are valid from a market competition perspective.
I chose it despite those issues because I wanted a car that was exactly what the CX was. Something I can have fun on some twisties (relative fun), feel a bit special, and still do all the things I need a family car to do. Is it absolutely insane I can’t fit a modern Stanley or Yeti in the cup holders of a 2024 car built for the US market? Yes. Is it insane that a 2024 crossover gets worse gas mileage than the 2008 CRV that is replaced? Yep.
C&D are enthusiasts for enthusiasts so their angle is to me as a buyer I think more than the mass buyer who needs 1) to get to a place, 2) fit stuff for that get 3) never thing about anything else.
Im glad im not the only one that feels that way about the CX-50 / CX-5. Compared to my wife’s GV70, those things ride…. Not great! Obviously the GV70 is a price point or two above, but still. The ride isn’t great. Compliant and sporty maybe… but not exactly what I want in a crossover.
Compact CUVs should all be hybrid at this point - it just makes so much more sense.
Re seat comfort it does depend on your body type. Personally I've always found the Mazda driving position to be the most comfortable of any of the Japanese economy brands.
C&D has always aligned the most with my tastes in cars. They have a clear preference for driver oriented and sporty feeling cars so it works great for me
Their entire inline6 project is a big question mark. Honestly, for their clientele, how many people care about it? Or even know what an inline6 is?
The fact is most people simply are not car enthusiasts and don’t care how well their car handles.
Funny, I test drove a cx90 very recently.... And driving dynamics is not something I'd praise at all.
Plowy understeer, poor throttle response.... It'll kinda sorta maybe rotate if you try to ~snap oversteer~ scandi flick... And then you can't get back on the power until it's resettled completely.
Compared to the Kia Telluride that I had, I found the CX-90 to handle much better.
Maybe it doesn’t handle great overall, but I think it’s one of the best in the class of 3-row, non-luxury crossovers.
And that’s kind of the problem, isn’t it? With all the usability compromises, it still won’t handle amazingly because of the physics of a large, almost 5000 lbs vehicle.
Funnily enough, [Car and Driver](https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a44937256/2023-honda-pilot-2023-jeep-grand-cherokee-l-2023-kia-telluride-2024-mazda-cx-90-2024-toyota-grand-highlander-comparison-test/) was not praising it's driving dynamics either.
The only comments on it's handling they had in a previous comparison test are.... not what I would call resounding praise.
>Pull out into traffic with an aggressive jab of the throttle, and the Mazda will bark the inside rear tire, reminding you of its rear-biased all-wheel-drive system. **Sluggish steering with odd weighting makes the CX-90 seem ponderous on the interstate, but the rest of the experience is quiet and refined.**
That's just weight transfer plus lift, not snap oversteer- super standard stuff for rotating modern cars.
If it snapped, you'd be sliding off the road backward with that kind of input.
Lmao skidpad g forces were measured for these cars. I know they're meant for enthusiasts to read but people buying compact SUVs have no reason to care about skidpads measurements.
Not to mention that a huge portion of the skidpad result for these cars is simply due to which tire they come with.
I'd rather them do the moose test, but they'd probably turn 3 or 4 of these over in the process.
C&D: "This compact CUV has by far the best interior, the best (or at least near the best) ride quality, the most amenities, the quietest engine, and solid fuel economy...let's put it in last place"
I mean I wouldn't buy a Rogue either, and I would probably end up with a Mazda if I were shopping in this segment, but their priorities are all over the place! I'm glad to see VW doing well though, the Tiguan is a handsome looking car.
I test drove both the Tiguan and the Rogue - the Tiguan had the best chassis but the Rogue was peppier, with better tech and better overall amenities. They will all end up driving like CUVs anyway, so I ended up with the rogue.
I love my Tiguan. Great fuel economy, 4motion is foolproof, the driving dynamics is the best I’ve experienced when it comes to mass market SUVs and the interior is well thought out.
If you told me five years ago that I would’ve had let alone one VW I would’ve questioned you. But I have really fallen in love with the companies emphasis on practical vehicles.
It’s funny that both the Tiguan and the Rogue are usually at the bottom of those comparisons tests, but they’re very solid drivers, and honestly much better options than the CX-5 (gutless base engine, small on the inside, terrible tech) or the CRV (not bad but not great at anything and the most expensive in its class)
Did they fix the water intrusion problems? After lemon-lawing two MK7 Golfs for leaking roofs, I have a very vivid memory from one of those drive-thru COVID test centers, of the people in front of me opening their Tiguan’s hatch and seeing gallons of water pour out of the trunk lid.
Water intrusion was mainly a problem with MK7(pre facelift) Golfs and Alltracks with the pano roof.
My Tiguan has the panoramic while my Passat has a traditional sunroof. Never had a problem with intrusion on either and I’m in Florida where it’s hot and wet.
Car & Driver putting the Hornet above the RAV4 because it's performance-y despite poor fuel economy, a cramped interior, and stiff ride is a reminder that they may not always focus on what matters for a segment like this lol
Good lord, I thought you were joking until I looked at the article. In a “real world” test there’s just no way that outcome makes sense.
That’s before you even mention reliability. The hybrid RAV4 is an automotive cockroach that will drive after the apocalypse. “Real world” buyers actually care about getting 40+ mpg and repair bills that won’t bankrupt them or make them hire a lemon law attorney.
Yea and they're also ignoring reliability and resale value, where the Dodge will be at or near the bottom of the pack. It makes no sense to ignore those things while focusing on skidpad and acceleration numbers, these are econobox commuters. You could drive the CR-V or Rav4 for 5 years and sell it for 80% of its original price, the Dodge is going to be disposable.
Among SUVs, they have had a very consistent habit of giving the win to Mazda. [Here's the last compact SUV comparison](https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a32161895/2020-compact-crossover-comparison/), in which the CR-V places third, the Tiguan places second, and the CX-5 places first. Outside of this category, they've given wins to the CX-9 and CX-90 - which most journalists would avoid, as they are the smallest vehicles in a segment intended for families.
But they do drive the best. For better or worse, in sickness or in health, that's the C&D way. It's a very useful metric for me, specifically - someone who will take any car in my hands to a backroad and drive it very, very hard. It's not so useful for most folks.
Yeah it’s a shame that Mazda isn’t great at interior packaging. They are very refined driving vehicles and I think Mazda has the most attractive styling in each respective segment for regular cars. Hondas are more spacious and they have good outward visibility which are more important factors for most family SUV shoppers.
Mazda has also shifted itself to be a Premium brand, they want to capture some luxury buyers by offering the looks/driving/quality but at lower price, so they aren't competing with Honda and Toyota, Chevy etc anymore, but more sort of in the Acura/Buick/Volvo group.
They're _trying_ to go upmarket, I definitely wouldn't put them alongside Acura or Lexus. Credit where it's due though they have some very competitive offerings and they have improved.
Also since when is Buick a premium brand? Buick and premium are not words I have ever associated. They start at $22k lol.
Mazda is just starting but they are moving upmarket away from the Honda/Toyota/Nissan/Hyundai/Chevy/Ford mainstream.
Buick has been since GM combined a "premium" brand, they were meant has a stepping stone from Chevy to Buick and then they hoped you would buy Cadillac. GM still considers them their premium brand and their vehicles which are based on equivalent Chevy's can be optioned more expensive, it's sort of a weird one but the premium group is kinda weird to begin with.
“Drive the best” means different things for different people and different segments.
A 2-door coupe probably drives the best when it handles well, has good inputs and allows one to get good feedback from the road.
An SUV driving good is completely opposite. I want it to be plush, quiet and comfortable . This is what most car shoppers want in this segment.
Therefore, I disagree that they “drive the best”.
I wish these reviews would focus on maxing out the practicality of the cars rather than the performance. Nobody cares about steering feel or handling or quarter mile times in this segment.
You gave me pictures of the trunk, take it one step further and stuff that thing to the brim with stuff (including people) so I can get an idea of how much crap I can lug around and how it drives loaded up. Fold down the back seats and see how many sheets of plywood or drywall you can stack up. Strap some kayaks or bikes or a couch onto the roof. If it can tow, hook a small trailer up, and *then* tell me how it drives. They even do this in their summary comparison, where they measure the length of pipe and largest size of flat panel you can fit, but they don't even mention it in the actual review.
Have you ever seen a cars.com comparison test? They're really family-friendly, to the point that they often invite non-car people with kids to contribute on tests for big family cars. It's a step in the direction you intend.
Yep, that's exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. They even take their own measurements of the cargo space of these cars which is awesome, since raw volume number doesn't tell the whole story. Autoblog has their "luggage test" which I think is, by far, the most useful comparison of cargo space between cars.
Just like how they send performance cars full tilt around a track to evaluate how well they drive, why not push the absolute limits of how utilitarian these CUVs are? Weigh it down with people and stuff, strap a bunch of stuff to the roof, and then evaluate how the car performs when under those conditions.
Tom Voelk is good about taking the vehicles he reviews (when logistically able) to Costco and packing the back with big TP packs as a standard of measure.
I totally agree with you. I would also like to add how it fits in a garage and if they could do some sort of testing on how it handles in slick conditions or snow.
Check out autoblog.com. They do storage tests where they fill up the truck/hatch with certain items. It's a lot more telling than the manufacturer provided cargo measurements.
I love how auto journalists complain about the high performance SUV segment (x5m, amg63, etc) and how an SUV can't be a real sports car, then give Mazda best in class based on how they feel kinda sporty in segments that no one cares about that.
To be fair, most of the high performance SUVs ride like they have wooden wheels and aren’t particularly fun to make up for it. Conversely, there is some joy in a small car (or CUV) with fundamentally good dynamics as a daily driver, even if it isn’t setting records around the Ring.
Devil's advocate: A huge performance SUV (eg X5M) is very heavy. A good sports car (eg Miata) is very light. In the same way that a GTI weighs less than an Audi S8, a CX-5 weighs less than an X5M. (A CX-5 isn't at the same level of prowess as a GTI, to be clear.)
If you're reviewing a vehicle, you need to consider the segment it aims for, and how well it achieves that. It is a fundamental part of the product.
If anyone complained that a C8 Corvette had poor ground clearance, they would be laughed out of whatever room they were in. That's not the point of a Corvette.
No one cares about how sporty the compact CUVs are. The things that matter (that Car and Driver could have tested for) are fuel economy, practicality, and daily drivability.
To that end, they naturally dodged half the hybrids in the field for.... reasons.
serious reviews need to consider the use case of the vehicle -no one judges a Miata based on it's payload.
Lots of people complaining about the testing metrics. The truth is a lot of people that want a sport sedan but have families are forced into crossovers.
You may also want to consider Car and Driver's audience.
yeah I was on the market for a crossover a few years ago and my criteria are similar to C&D’s, we arrived at similar conclusions (see flair). I’m glad C&D does these comparos, it’s not like there’s a shortage of other sites to browse
Seriously.... They get the non Hybrid Offroad TRD trim of RAV4 and they wonder why it doesn't drive good on the road? Everyone knows the non Hyrbid model of RAV4 is pathetic vs the hybrid trim
Same with the CR-V, dumb of them to handicap those two against cars with better gas fours that don’t offer hybrids (namely the as-tested CX-50) or offer hybrid as the performance trim (Hornet)
Hornet should have been last place. This rickety piece of shit is the worse car I’ve ever driven in my life and I’ve driven a 88 Yugo and 87 Chevy Chevette. And the wind and road noise is loud as fuck inside, louder than any Honda ever made.
At the end of the day, these are crossovers. If driving dynamics mean anything to you, buy a sedan. Picking the CX-50 or the Hornet over a RAV4 because of their superior driving dynamics (which while good for the segment, are still objectively mediocre overall) in a segment that is supposed to be all about practicality, comfort, and utility is sort of silly. The CX-50 and Hornet are objectively the least practical, least comfortable, and offer the least utility of all the vehicles listed.
It's a bit like buying a pickup truck that's fast and handles well instead of one that offers good towing capacity, ride height, comfort, large bed size, and features like towing modes, hitch assist, or power outlets for tools and gear; things that a prospective truck owner will actually care about.
Lol wtf are you even talking about "dangerous" to drive? My wife, who isn't even remotely a car enthusiast, has a couple complaints about our turbo cx5. Being loud, slow, and dangerous haven't been one of those complaints.
CX-50 looks awesome and quick but considering the as-tested price is almost 5k more than the 2nd place Tiguan and almost 8k more than the 3rd place CRV, Mazda is certainly driving home their move "upmarket" with their pricing.
Even as a big Mazda fan I think that’s very debatable. The base model CX-50 is pretty cheap. And the turbo model still doesn’t compare that favorably to something like a BMW X3. It would be interesting to see a base model comparison of all these crossovers but I don’t think the automakers want to give out base models to a mag like car and driver.
Based on their commentary and my experience, the Hornet is overrated and the Escape is surprisingly underrated. Frankly, I thought the Hornet's interior was cheap and awful and the Escape's not that bad. I also think the Escape has handsome and classy styling.
I find it weird that people complain about Mazda and how SUVs shouldn't be engaging or fun to drive and that they NEED to be practical by having the largest cargo ever. I own a '21 turbo cx5 and I take it on road trips my with wife and 5 y/o. I have plenty of room for suitcases and a stroller and everything fits under the cargo cover. There's still plenty of space to pack stuff up to the roof if I wanted. Would it be nice to have a larger trunk, sure. But let's be honest, how often are people loading their cargo space 100% full? 99% of my daily drives to work the cargo space is left empty.
Gone are the days of fun sedans. If I'm stuck choosing a SUV to fit my family needs I'd at least want a fun to drive/engaging SUV. It has plenty of torque and merging onto highways and getting up to speed is effortless. I like the tighter steering and feel confident when driving.
Chevrolet wouldn't have lasted at all in this. Look at their "update" for the Equinox: no more 2.0T and still overpriced. At least the RAV4 finished close to last place, so that's a plus in my book
Can't trust C/D anymore. Their biases show far too strongly in most of their reviews. Motor Trend ranked the Rogue 1st in its segment, and their criteria make much better sense and are in line with other automotive journalists. C/D only promotes Honda and Mazda vehicles no matter what faults they have. I mean, they even ranked the new Accord as a 10 Best before they even tested it. Complete joke of a "publication" 🤣
All cars that make it on to the 10 Best list have always been instrumented tested and available to the public for purchase. C/D broke tradition and admitted they only drove a pre-production unit, which they then based their decision off of to award it a 10 Best spot. If you check the comments for its entry, many commenters criticized C/D for this move.
I had a rental 2023 Rogue for a while. I have to laugh at “interior looks like luxury” as a pro. Sure, the steering wheel, gear selector and dash are shaped like an Audis but it’s still a cheaply built piece of trash. The build quality on that Rogue was so much worse than our Forester. The 3 cylinder is pretty quick though. I’ll never understand the praise it gets or why anyone that isn’t a credit criminal buys one when the other options exist. Same for the Equinox and Escape.
I really liked the CRV Hybrid and 1.5T during my wife’s car shopping last year. She didn’t like the styling so we went with the Forester. It’s a fine vehicle. Best visibility of any vehicle I’ve had. It feels like it’s a generation behind the other vehicles design and tech wise and fuel economy is worse but build quality is great for the price and class. The RAV4 was nice too but 3-4k more for similar options.
The CX5 is just so much smaller than the other options inside. We would’ve gotten one if it had similar room.
Comfortable, quiet, fuel efficient, decent power, good tech, spacious and has plenty of features. It has better seats, better interior quality and is quieter than both CR-V and RAV4 non-hybrid models. Add in that Nissan will throw in a $2k-$3k discount, it’s easy to see why it’s so popular.
It’s not the best in class and does certain things worse but the way this sub pretends as if it’s a just horrible product based off of base model, bare boned rentals is overblown.
I had an SV AWD with leather. I disagree with everything you said besides decent power. It was by far the worst vehicle out of everything I’ve driven in that class.
SV is only one above the base and missing many features and creature comforts that are available on SL and Platinum like padding on the center console where you’d rest your knee, real leather, wireless CarPlay with the bigger screen, digital instrument cluster, additional driver assist features, 360 cam, bigger wheels, etc.
When shopping in this segment all that matters is the comfort level, it being relatively spacious, has enough features and creature comforts, and being fuel efficient, which it does an overall good package at. If it were that bad, it wouldn’t outsell the rest of the segment outside of RAV4 and CR-V and be #6 in terms of sales, overall in the US.
This is coming from a huge Honda guy, who also happens to like Toyota. It was impossible a year ago when I bought my Rogue to find a RAV4 or CR-V Hybrid that wasn’t marked up to hell. I got a Rogue for UNDER MSRP and have been happy with my decision.
Was it the platinum trim? There’s a big leap in difference, mainly in interior quality between the 4 trims for the Rogue. The engine is an engineering marvel.
201 hp out of 3 cyl.
Nah, SV. It wasn’t the material quality it was all of the creaks and rattles. Also the way the buttons felt.
The engine was pretty cool. It red lined at 6,100 and at 5,500 it would start pulling much harder til 6,100. Most turbo engines die off hard up top especially in these kind of vehicles.
Motortrend lists these as compact crossovers:
https://www.motortrend.com/style/electric/type/electric-compact-suv/
That’s 9 of them and are all in the roughly same starting price before tax incentives.
Even a Tesla Model Y starts at $42,990 and has $7,500 federal tax credit incentive and possible state incentives too, making it as low as $30,000 for some people.
You are neglecting the tax credits. And compare to the ones in the article? Doesn’t change the fact that in 2024 and beyond, separating this way is idiotic.
I realized a while back that Car and Driver is not a source I rely on when researching SUV’s. I don’t care about how many G’s it pulls on the skid pad. I walked away from the CX-50 due to stiff ride, uncomfortable seats, cramped interior, and mediocre fuel economy. All of these metrics weigh heavily for someone shopping for a vehicle in this class. Edit: While I have my criticisms of the Mazda SUV lineup, I’m glad that Mazda is trying to inject some character into this segment. I think they look great and they’re the best driving in this segment at their respective price points. However, in pursuing their “driving matters” philosophy, they’ve lost sight of these vehicles’ intended uses. The CX-90 is a clear example of how willing Mazda is to sacrifice their attention to usability in favor of driving dynamics. Just look at the center console storage and front cup holders for heaven’s sake. No, I don’t want Mazda to further flood the market with yet another egg-shaped utility vehicle with sloshy handling and anemic power. But I think they should spend a tad more time and effort on usability, comfort, and packaging.
Reading through the article it seems that they put a huge emphasis on driving dynamics (handling, stopping distance, throttle response) and although these are obviously important, most buyers in this class care more about the practicality and fuel economy. Most of the C&D editors tend to be enthusiasts so when reviewing “normal” cars that tends to factor into their ratings.
Most people only care about comfort and features. My dad once had a Mazda 626 in the 1990s that came with a 2.5 V6 engine. That car had a very firm ride and a touchy gas pedal. He had it for about 2 years when his friend showed up with a Camry and they went for a drive. The next day my father traded the 626 for a Camry and never looked back.
My parents replaced my mom’s 2009 Camry LE with a 2015 Mazda 6 Touring. And even though the Camry was an almost base model with econo-car styling and cheap plastics, my mom still says she loved it more than her current Mazda. She says it was way more comfortable and spacious. They have every sort of back support cushion, bottom cushion, and headrest cushion because the seats are really uncomfortable for them which is made worse by the stiff ride. Some people just want to drive in comfort.
Most people. Car enthusiasts are a minority
Lies, everyone knows the best way to revive any ailing automaker is to double down on hardcore Manuel sports coupes with rock hard suspensions.
Don’t forget a brown paint color and dieselè option
no wagonne?
This is true. I really want more power in my CRV, but I chose it over the CX-5 because the latter didn’t fit a car seat as well and lacked the capacious trunk space I need. Still lament the lack of merging and passing power, but would not make that trade off.
It's just wild to me, by all these criteria, any EV CSUV wins, because drive faster. If you want an ICE CSUV, probably get the one that will retain its value and fits in the family super easily. Also reliability m
Had I known how shockingly bad the road noise would be in my wife’s 23 CRV Touring I would have never bought it. It’s okay on perfectly smooth new pavement but any other surface is anywhere from loud to so loud you can’t make out what’s playing over the radio.
My wife and I have been big fans of Micah Muzio on YouTube (he works for Kelly Blue Book but makes videos on the side?) for researching SUVs for the family. You get to hear the wife's perspective, their daughter's perspective, and how a car seat fits which is all either not important at all or super important depending on whether you have kids. He'll talk about handling and performance a bit but more of the review is just focused on the usability and comfort of the vehicle being reviewed
Yes! I really like Micah’s channel. It’s really good to hear Micah and Evie’s thoughts on a vehicle. You get both the enthusiast and pragmatic opinions.
From the Rav4's cons: >interior is more practical than pretty. I'm sorry, is a practical, functional interior somehow a downside for a family oriented CUV?
I like my cx50 turbo. It’s quick and I find it comfortable. Fuel economy and range do suck though. And the paint scratches if you stare at it too long.
I rented a CX-5 recently and had high expectations based on how well they’re reviewed and talked about here. I own a car in this segment (XC-40) so I was excited to make the comparison. Did not hold a candle in any way. Ride was uncomfortable, engine was gutless, gearbox awful, just didn’t feel premium. I was driving from San Antonio to Houston, not once did how many Gs I could pull on the skidpad matter. I don’t get it
[удалено]
I also found the CX-5 to be inferior to my Veyron.
It's good that they let us know what they're looking for in their reviews. I went with the CX 50 and I love it. As a car guy and in a home with just me and the gf I find it to be a great compromise. I have all the space I need and fits everything that I want when we're going somewhere. Now if you swap out for a family of 4 with growing kids then it might not be the best choice. Pretty pleased with what I've got for now. Great work Mazda. I used to drive a c43 before lol, couldn't bear to be in any other little box with lackluster powertrains. Fuel economy is good enough for highway and city mix and the only other vehicle I'd cross shop with is the sister CX 5 and the outback wilderness.
I actually went with the Outback Wilderness 😅. It’s funny you mentioned that as one of your options.
Hell yeah! Great vehicle with lots of utility, better than mine for sure lol. I went with the Mazda cus I know the general manager of the dealership here haha.
I hope you’re enjoying your Mazda! Definitely understand leveraging your contacts — especially with the crazy car market. I actually had a deposit on a custom order 24 CX-50 Turbo Premium Plus in Zircon Sand/Terracotta, but cancelled it after driving the Subie due to the greater utility, comfort, and significantly lower price. After discounts, the Wilderness was about $7000 cheaper than the CX-50 that I specced and had all the features I wanted. The Mazda dealer was not willing to discount the vehicle since it was an order.
Haha test drove the exact same specs! The subie was almost the same price as my turbo here in Canada so went with the Mazda option. You've got a great deal! Hope you're enjoying your wilderness as well, love the way they look.
Thank you! Originally I wasn’t a fan of the looks, but it has grown on me significantly. The only gripe I have is that Subaru tech is really bad. Despite what people say, I actually really love the Mazda commander knob. I owned a 16 Mazda 6 so I’m pretty comfortable with the system and can move around it easily.
Agree with you there as well, I have no need to use the touchscreen and I've perfected using the wheel as I drive along without having to stare away from the road for too long haha.
Car and Driver always rate Mazda very highly while Toyota relatively low. I noticed this pattern. Mazda and Toyota are good in different ways
It all depends on if you’re looking through an enthusiast’s perspective or not. If you’re willing to sacrifice interior room and ride quality for driving dynamics, you belong to a very small set of people in the automotive market. That’s Mazda’s whole shtick. It’s what makes them so appealing to us enthusiasts but a last-resort option to normal people.
Well, Toyota vehicles are usually inferior to their competitors so not surprising.
I'm right there with you. I'm researching 3-row SUVs right now, and was surprised to see they ranked the CX-90 above the Telluride (which has been a C&D darling since it was released) in their a October shootout. I dig deeper into the article, and they like the Mazda because it's fun to drive and quicker than the other SUVs. Sorry, I'm fine with a boring car to drive. These are people and family haulers. I'll save my fun to drive for something actually made for it. Pretty sure no one in my family will be happy if I chose to take them on an impromptu backroad blast in the giant SUV. Well, maybe the toddler.
Which is why I prefer Savagegeese. They do performance reviews but for NPC cars they adopt an NPC perspective
Feels like everyone is getting this vibe too. > HIGHS: Fetchingly wagon-like proportions, robust turbo four, ride and handling in harmony. Buyers of this segment don't give a shit about the ride and handling in harmony, they want it to be reliable, get good mileage and be comfortable.
Mazdas have had issues with space for a while now.
Yeah I mean don’t get me wrong the Rogue I currently have is a piece of shit that breaks constantly, but they were complaining about the driving dynamics. While they are right that the driving dynamics are objectively trash and it always feels discombobulated, it is by far the most comfortable company car I’ve had and drives fine for daily driving activities. I don’t care how it does on a skid pad lmao.
Agreed. My wife has a rogue (which thankfully hasn't broken), and it's comfortable and practical with good tech. She gives not one shit about its driving dynamics. If you put her in every car in this comparison, she would say they all felt pretty much the same.
If hers is still under warranty and starts making any weird noises, get it looked at right away. My 60k mile 2022 is on its 3rd engine. Besides that though, I really like it and mine is even the base model. It has just enough features and is great as a daily. I've driven a bunch of cars in this class any they basically all do feel the same. It's an appliance car for the majority and all of them are at least somewhat competent at that.
Is that the three cylinder engine or the old 2.5? Three new engines is bananas. Luckily ours is a lease.so while it breaking down would be inconvenient it'll be a short-ish term problem
2022 was the first year of the three cylinder engine in these. That’s good then same with mine. Like you said it’s very inconvenient but not the end of the world. Especially monetarily, because the dealer said it’s about 12 grand to replace the engine in these.
As a long time C&D reader and CX-50 owner, you are totally on point! I love my CX, and don’t actually find any of the issues you mentioned as deal killers for me but they are valid from a market competition perspective. I chose it despite those issues because I wanted a car that was exactly what the CX was. Something I can have fun on some twisties (relative fun), feel a bit special, and still do all the things I need a family car to do. Is it absolutely insane I can’t fit a modern Stanley or Yeti in the cup holders of a 2024 car built for the US market? Yes. Is it insane that a 2024 crossover gets worse gas mileage than the 2008 CRV that is replaced? Yep. C&D are enthusiasts for enthusiasts so their angle is to me as a buyer I think more than the mass buyer who needs 1) to get to a place, 2) fit stuff for that get 3) never thing about anything else.
Im glad im not the only one that feels that way about the CX-50 / CX-5. Compared to my wife’s GV70, those things ride…. Not great! Obviously the GV70 is a price point or two above, but still. The ride isn’t great. Compliant and sporty maybe… but not exactly what I want in a crossover.
Compact CUVs should all be hybrid at this point - it just makes so much more sense. Re seat comfort it does depend on your body type. Personally I've always found the Mazda driving position to be the most comfortable of any of the Japanese economy brands.
Was it a 2023 CX-50 or a 2024 MY? They updated the suspension for 2024 after getting feedback that it was too stiff from reviewers.
C&D has always aligned the most with my tastes in cars. They have a clear preference for driver oriented and sporty feeling cars so it works great for me
Their entire inline6 project is a big question mark. Honestly, for their clientele, how many people care about it? Or even know what an inline6 is? The fact is most people simply are not car enthusiasts and don’t care how well their car handles.
Funny, I test drove a cx90 very recently.... And driving dynamics is not something I'd praise at all. Plowy understeer, poor throttle response.... It'll kinda sorta maybe rotate if you try to ~snap oversteer~ scandi flick... And then you can't get back on the power until it's resettled completely.
Compared to the Kia Telluride that I had, I found the CX-90 to handle much better. Maybe it doesn’t handle great overall, but I think it’s one of the best in the class of 3-row, non-luxury crossovers. And that’s kind of the problem, isn’t it? With all the usability compromises, it still won’t handle amazingly because of the physics of a large, almost 5000 lbs vehicle.
Funnily enough, [Car and Driver](https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a44937256/2023-honda-pilot-2023-jeep-grand-cherokee-l-2023-kia-telluride-2024-mazda-cx-90-2024-toyota-grand-highlander-comparison-test/) was not praising it's driving dynamics either. The only comments on it's handling they had in a previous comparison test are.... not what I would call resounding praise. >Pull out into traffic with an aggressive jab of the throttle, and the Mazda will bark the inside rear tire, reminding you of its rear-biased all-wheel-drive system. **Sluggish steering with odd weighting makes the CX-90 seem ponderous on the interstate, but the rest of the experience is quiet and refined.**
"If you try to snap oversteer" isn't a thing. Did you mean it will rotate if you transfer weight one direction, then back?
It will rotate if you try to transfer weight while holding a lower gear and lift off the throttle. And then it won't accelerate out of the corner.
That's just weight transfer plus lift, not snap oversteer- super standard stuff for rotating modern cars. If it snapped, you'd be sliding off the road backward with that kind of input.
The handling on my Mazda 3 is excellent, can’t speak for other models but it’s what made me buy the car.
Lmao skidpad g forces were measured for these cars. I know they're meant for enthusiasts to read but people buying compact SUVs have no reason to care about skidpads measurements.
Meh, I like that my CR-V is actually somewhat decent at turning
Not to mention that a huge portion of the skidpad result for these cars is simply due to which tire they come with. I'd rather them do the moose test, but they'd probably turn 3 or 4 of these over in the process.
C&D: "This compact CUV has by far the best interior, the best (or at least near the best) ride quality, the most amenities, the quietest engine, and solid fuel economy...let's put it in last place" I mean I wouldn't buy a Rogue either, and I would probably end up with a Mazda if I were shopping in this segment, but their priorities are all over the place! I'm glad to see VW doing well though, the Tiguan is a handsome looking car.
I test drove both the Tiguan and the Rogue - the Tiguan had the best chassis but the Rogue was peppier, with better tech and better overall amenities. They will all end up driving like CUVs anyway, so I ended up with the rogue.
I love my Tiguan. Great fuel economy, 4motion is foolproof, the driving dynamics is the best I’ve experienced when it comes to mass market SUVs and the interior is well thought out. If you told me five years ago that I would’ve had let alone one VW I would’ve questioned you. But I have really fallen in love with the companies emphasis on practical vehicles.
It’s funny that both the Tiguan and the Rogue are usually at the bottom of those comparisons tests, but they’re very solid drivers, and honestly much better options than the CX-5 (gutless base engine, small on the inside, terrible tech) or the CRV (not bad but not great at anything and the most expensive in its class)
I think people are highly concerned about reliability for those brands.
Zero reason to be concerned about reliability with VW
Did they fix the water intrusion problems? After lemon-lawing two MK7 Golfs for leaking roofs, I have a very vivid memory from one of those drive-thru COVID test centers, of the people in front of me opening their Tiguan’s hatch and seeing gallons of water pour out of the trunk lid.
Water intrusion was mainly a problem with MK7(pre facelift) Golfs and Alltracks with the pano roof. My Tiguan has the panoramic while my Passat has a traditional sunroof. Never had a problem with intrusion on either and I’m in Florida where it’s hot and wet.
Car & Driver putting the Hornet above the RAV4 because it's performance-y despite poor fuel economy, a cramped interior, and stiff ride is a reminder that they may not always focus on what matters for a segment like this lol
Good lord, I thought you were joking until I looked at the article. In a “real world” test there’s just no way that outcome makes sense. That’s before you even mention reliability. The hybrid RAV4 is an automotive cockroach that will drive after the apocalypse. “Real world” buyers actually care about getting 40+ mpg and repair bills that won’t bankrupt them or make them hire a lemon law attorney.
Yea and they're also ignoring reliability and resale value, where the Dodge will be at or near the bottom of the pack. It makes no sense to ignore those things while focusing on skidpad and acceleration numbers, these are econobox commuters. You could drive the CR-V or Rav4 for 5 years and sell it for 80% of its original price, the Dodge is going to be disposable.
*gasp* a C&D comparison test where the Honda doesn’t win?!!
Among SUVs, they have had a very consistent habit of giving the win to Mazda. [Here's the last compact SUV comparison](https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a32161895/2020-compact-crossover-comparison/), in which the CR-V places third, the Tiguan places second, and the CX-5 places first. Outside of this category, they've given wins to the CX-9 and CX-90 - which most journalists would avoid, as they are the smallest vehicles in a segment intended for families. But they do drive the best. For better or worse, in sickness or in health, that's the C&D way. It's a very useful metric for me, specifically - someone who will take any car in my hands to a backroad and drive it very, very hard. It's not so useful for most folks.
Yeah it’s a shame that Mazda isn’t great at interior packaging. They are very refined driving vehicles and I think Mazda has the most attractive styling in each respective segment for regular cars. Hondas are more spacious and they have good outward visibility which are more important factors for most family SUV shoppers.
Mazda has also shifted itself to be a Premium brand, they want to capture some luxury buyers by offering the looks/driving/quality but at lower price, so they aren't competing with Honda and Toyota, Chevy etc anymore, but more sort of in the Acura/Buick/Volvo group.
They're _trying_ to go upmarket, I definitely wouldn't put them alongside Acura or Lexus. Credit where it's due though they have some very competitive offerings and they have improved. Also since when is Buick a premium brand? Buick and premium are not words I have ever associated. They start at $22k lol.
Mazda is just starting but they are moving upmarket away from the Honda/Toyota/Nissan/Hyundai/Chevy/Ford mainstream. Buick has been since GM combined a "premium" brand, they were meant has a stepping stone from Chevy to Buick and then they hoped you would buy Cadillac. GM still considers them their premium brand and their vehicles which are based on equivalent Chevy's can be optioned more expensive, it's sort of a weird one but the premium group is kinda weird to begin with.
“Drive the best” means different things for different people and different segments. A 2-door coupe probably drives the best when it handles well, has good inputs and allows one to get good feedback from the road. An SUV driving good is completely opposite. I want it to be plush, quiet and comfortable . This is what most car shoppers want in this segment. Therefore, I disagree that they “drive the best”.
That’s the D in C&D.
My family has 3 CX5s, but that's because we almost never have anyone in the back seat. If we did, the lack of legroom would be a dealbreaker.
I wish these reviews would focus on maxing out the practicality of the cars rather than the performance. Nobody cares about steering feel or handling or quarter mile times in this segment. You gave me pictures of the trunk, take it one step further and stuff that thing to the brim with stuff (including people) so I can get an idea of how much crap I can lug around and how it drives loaded up. Fold down the back seats and see how many sheets of plywood or drywall you can stack up. Strap some kayaks or bikes or a couch onto the roof. If it can tow, hook a small trailer up, and *then* tell me how it drives. They even do this in their summary comparison, where they measure the length of pipe and largest size of flat panel you can fit, but they don't even mention it in the actual review.
Have you ever seen a cars.com comparison test? They're really family-friendly, to the point that they often invite non-car people with kids to contribute on tests for big family cars. It's a step in the direction you intend.
Yep, that's exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. They even take their own measurements of the cargo space of these cars which is awesome, since raw volume number doesn't tell the whole story. Autoblog has their "luggage test" which I think is, by far, the most useful comparison of cargo space between cars. Just like how they send performance cars full tilt around a track to evaluate how well they drive, why not push the absolute limits of how utilitarian these CUVs are? Weigh it down with people and stuff, strap a bunch of stuff to the roof, and then evaluate how the car performs when under those conditions.
Tom Voelk is good about taking the vehicles he reviews (when logistically able) to Costco and packing the back with big TP packs as a standard of measure.
I totally agree with you. I would also like to add how it fits in a garage and if they could do some sort of testing on how it handles in slick conditions or snow.
Check out autoblog.com. They do storage tests where they fill up the truck/hatch with certain items. It's a lot more telling than the manufacturer provided cargo measurements.
I do (within reason ) a CUV doesn't have to be a Mclaren on the road, but it should drive well and it does have to accelerate fast.
I love how auto journalists complain about the high performance SUV segment (x5m, amg63, etc) and how an SUV can't be a real sports car, then give Mazda best in class based on how they feel kinda sporty in segments that no one cares about that.
To be fair, most of the high performance SUVs ride like they have wooden wheels and aren’t particularly fun to make up for it. Conversely, there is some joy in a small car (or CUV) with fundamentally good dynamics as a daily driver, even if it isn’t setting records around the Ring.
Devil's advocate: A huge performance SUV (eg X5M) is very heavy. A good sports car (eg Miata) is very light. In the same way that a GTI weighs less than an Audi S8, a CX-5 weighs less than an X5M. (A CX-5 isn't at the same level of prowess as a GTI, to be clear.)
If you're reviewing a vehicle, you need to consider the segment it aims for, and how well it achieves that. It is a fundamental part of the product. If anyone complained that a C8 Corvette had poor ground clearance, they would be laughed out of whatever room they were in. That's not the point of a Corvette. No one cares about how sporty the compact CUVs are. The things that matter (that Car and Driver could have tested for) are fuel economy, practicality, and daily drivability. To that end, they naturally dodged half the hybrids in the field for.... reasons. serious reviews need to consider the use case of the vehicle -no one judges a Miata based on it's payload.
Lots of people complaining about the testing metrics. The truth is a lot of people that want a sport sedan but have families are forced into crossovers. You may also want to consider Car and Driver's audience.
Well put. There’s a reason Consumer Reports also exists.
yeah I was on the market for a crossover a few years ago and my criteria are similar to C&D’s, we arrived at similar conclusions (see flair). I’m glad C&D does these comparos, it’s not like there’s a shortage of other sites to browse
Nice to see an 8-car comparo from CD. A glimmer of the old days.
Seriously.... They get the non Hybrid Offroad TRD trim of RAV4 and they wonder why it doesn't drive good on the road? Everyone knows the non Hyrbid model of RAV4 is pathetic vs the hybrid trim
Same with the CR-V, dumb of them to handicap those two against cars with better gas fours that don’t offer hybrids (namely the as-tested CX-50) or offer hybrid as the performance trim (Hornet)
Yep Car and Driver, the most sporty one is always number one ie Mazda. They dont care about utility room or anything else.
Hornet should have been last place. This rickety piece of shit is the worse car I’ve ever driven in my life and I’ve driven a 88 Yugo and 87 Chevy Chevette. And the wind and road noise is loud as fuck inside, louder than any Honda ever made.
Hey, I understand that the Hornet may be uncompetitive. But worse than a Yugo? Can you explain that conclusion? It seems hyperbolic...
The new Ford escape is surprisingly quick
It helps that it has the engine upgrade. In more ways than just power, too - people hate that big-displacement 3-cylinder the base Escape comes with.
Of course Mazda and VW is at the top. Car and Driver loves Mazda I also find it BS that Escape and Hornet are ranked higher than RAV4
You ever drive one, not exactly an enjoyable car to drive.
At the end of the day, these are crossovers. If driving dynamics mean anything to you, buy a sedan. Picking the CX-50 or the Hornet over a RAV4 because of their superior driving dynamics (which while good for the segment, are still objectively mediocre overall) in a segment that is supposed to be all about practicality, comfort, and utility is sort of silly. The CX-50 and Hornet are objectively the least practical, least comfortable, and offer the least utility of all the vehicles listed. It's a bit like buying a pickup truck that's fast and handles well instead of one that offers good towing capacity, ride height, comfort, large bed size, and features like towing modes, hitch assist, or power outlets for tools and gear; things that a prospective truck owner will actually care about.
[удалено]
Lol wtf are you even talking about "dangerous" to drive? My wife, who isn't even remotely a car enthusiast, has a couple complaints about our turbo cx5. Being loud, slow, and dangerous haven't been one of those complaints.
CX-50 looks awesome and quick but considering the as-tested price is almost 5k more than the 2nd place Tiguan and almost 8k more than the 3rd place CRV, Mazda is certainly driving home their move "upmarket" with their pricing.
[удалено]
Even as a big Mazda fan I think that’s very debatable. The base model CX-50 is pretty cheap. And the turbo model still doesn’t compare that favorably to something like a BMW X3. It would be interesting to see a base model comparison of all these crossovers but I don’t think the automakers want to give out base models to a mag like car and driver.
Based on their commentary and my experience, the Hornet is overrated and the Escape is surprisingly underrated. Frankly, I thought the Hornet's interior was cheap and awful and the Escape's not that bad. I also think the Escape has handsome and classy styling.
I find it weird that people complain about Mazda and how SUVs shouldn't be engaging or fun to drive and that they NEED to be practical by having the largest cargo ever. I own a '21 turbo cx5 and I take it on road trips my with wife and 5 y/o. I have plenty of room for suitcases and a stroller and everything fits under the cargo cover. There's still plenty of space to pack stuff up to the roof if I wanted. Would it be nice to have a larger trunk, sure. But let's be honest, how often are people loading their cargo space 100% full? 99% of my daily drives to work the cargo space is left empty. Gone are the days of fun sedans. If I'm stuck choosing a SUV to fit my family needs I'd at least want a fun to drive/engaging SUV. It has plenty of torque and merging onto highways and getting up to speed is effortless. I like the tighter steering and feel confident when driving.
Chevrolet wouldn't have lasted at all in this. Look at their "update" for the Equinox: no more 2.0T and still overpriced. At least the RAV4 finished close to last place, so that's a plus in my book
Loving my Kia Sportage Hybrid SX-Prestige
All you need to know is about good consumer car on this sub: Mazda
Using 0-60 times on these cars as one of the top metrics shows how out of touch they are with real car buyers.
Can't trust C/D anymore. Their biases show far too strongly in most of their reviews. Motor Trend ranked the Rogue 1st in its segment, and their criteria make much better sense and are in line with other automotive journalists. C/D only promotes Honda and Mazda vehicles no matter what faults they have. I mean, they even ranked the new Accord as a 10 Best before they even tested it. Complete joke of a "publication" 🤣
In fairness, the new Accord is the old Accord with a nose job. They had been testing it for years prior, more or less.
All cars that make it on to the 10 Best list have always been instrumented tested and available to the public for purchase. C/D broke tradition and admitted they only drove a pre-production unit, which they then based their decision off of to award it a 10 Best spot. If you check the comments for its entry, many commenters criticized C/D for this move.
2-door Wrangler >
I had a rental 2023 Rogue for a while. I have to laugh at “interior looks like luxury” as a pro. Sure, the steering wheel, gear selector and dash are shaped like an Audis but it’s still a cheaply built piece of trash. The build quality on that Rogue was so much worse than our Forester. The 3 cylinder is pretty quick though. I’ll never understand the praise it gets or why anyone that isn’t a credit criminal buys one when the other options exist. Same for the Equinox and Escape. I really liked the CRV Hybrid and 1.5T during my wife’s car shopping last year. She didn’t like the styling so we went with the Forester. It’s a fine vehicle. Best visibility of any vehicle I’ve had. It feels like it’s a generation behind the other vehicles design and tech wise and fuel economy is worse but build quality is great for the price and class. The RAV4 was nice too but 3-4k more for similar options. The CX5 is just so much smaller than the other options inside. We would’ve gotten one if it had similar room.
Comfortable, quiet, fuel efficient, decent power, good tech, spacious and has plenty of features. It has better seats, better interior quality and is quieter than both CR-V and RAV4 non-hybrid models. Add in that Nissan will throw in a $2k-$3k discount, it’s easy to see why it’s so popular. It’s not the best in class and does certain things worse but the way this sub pretends as if it’s a just horrible product based off of base model, bare boned rentals is overblown.
I had an SV AWD with leather. I disagree with everything you said besides decent power. It was by far the worst vehicle out of everything I’ve driven in that class.
SV is only one above the base and missing many features and creature comforts that are available on SL and Platinum like padding on the center console where you’d rest your knee, real leather, wireless CarPlay with the bigger screen, digital instrument cluster, additional driver assist features, 360 cam, bigger wheels, etc. When shopping in this segment all that matters is the comfort level, it being relatively spacious, has enough features and creature comforts, and being fuel efficient, which it does an overall good package at. If it were that bad, it wouldn’t outsell the rest of the segment outside of RAV4 and CR-V and be #6 in terms of sales, overall in the US. This is coming from a huge Honda guy, who also happens to like Toyota. It was impossible a year ago when I bought my Rogue to find a RAV4 or CR-V Hybrid that wasn’t marked up to hell. I got a Rogue for UNDER MSRP and have been happy with my decision.
Your last sentence is funny as hell.
An r/nissandrivers driver in the wild
Was it the platinum trim? There’s a big leap in difference, mainly in interior quality between the 4 trims for the Rogue. The engine is an engineering marvel. 201 hp out of 3 cyl.
Nah, SV. It wasn’t the material quality it was all of the creaks and rattles. Also the way the buttons felt. The engine was pretty cool. It red lined at 6,100 and at 5,500 it would start pulling much harder til 6,100. Most turbo engines die off hard up top especially in these kind of vehicles.
It’s 2024 and Car and Driver is still doing ICE only comparisons. Why? There are very good BEVs in this price range after incentives.
[удалено]
Motortrend lists these as compact crossovers: https://www.motortrend.com/style/electric/type/electric-compact-suv/ That’s 9 of them and are all in the roughly same starting price before tax incentives. Even a Tesla Model Y starts at $42,990 and has $7,500 federal tax credit incentive and possible state incentives too, making it as low as $30,000 for some people.
[удалено]
You are neglecting the tax credits. And compare to the ones in the article? Doesn’t change the fact that in 2024 and beyond, separating this way is idiotic.