Motor Trend Comparison - 2010 Terrain vs. 2010 CR-V vs. 2010 Tucson vs. 2010 Forester

[DrewSXR]

Motor Trend Comparison: 2010 GMC Terrain vs 2010 Honda CR-V vs 2010 Hyundai Tucson vs 2010 Subaru Forester
Four of a Kind: Can Hyundai's All-New Tucson Outduel a Benchmark, the Latest from the General, and a Former Sport/Utility of the Year?

http://www.motortrend.com/road....html

Quote »

1ST PLACE: 2010 HONDA CR-V 4WD EX-L Composed chassis, premium materials, and a jewel of an engine equal winner. 2ND PLACE: 2010 HYUNDAI TUCSON AWD LIMITED Stiff ride and spotty steering handicap an otherwise quick, agile, and choice CUV. 3RD PLACE: 2010 GMC TERRAIN AWD SLT-1 GM's boxy newcomer is fun to drive and feature laden, but too heavy and too costly. 4TH PLACE: 2010 SUBARU FORESTER 2.5X PREMIUM PZEV With archaic four-speed and basement power, the former champ shows its age.

[Moodyblues]

We've had our CR-V for two months now and are thoroughly enjoying it. The car is quite comfortable and suprisingly responsive.

[Volvo_D]

I want none of the above.

[VdubChaos]

Cliff notes: Honda paid MT the most.

[1SICKLEX]

Quote, originally posted by VdubChaos »

Cliff notes: Honda paid MT the most.

I understand its completely competent and does its job but its amazing people will buy such an ugly vehicle in droves.

[masa8888]

The GMC sure does look the best out of this group.

[Oliver@triplezoom]

Quote, originally posted by 1SICKLEX »

I understand its completely competent and does its job but its amazing people will buy such an ugly vehicle in droves.

Obviously not everyone thinks it is ugly.

[1SICKLEX]

Quote, originally posted by Oliver@triplezoom »

Obviously not everyone thinks it is ugly.

Its ugly to them, it has the right badge though.... Have you ever seen a Honda owner survey? "ugly" is always one of the top 5 things they wish could be improved. Its pretty amazing to see the results as "ugly" is overlooked for other merits.

[pacerhimself]

I really don't see the CR-V as ugly. It has a few less-than-traditional styling elements but I think they're executed well and go well together.

[nickthaskater]

The Hyundai is quite a smart looking little vehicle. Of the four, that's where my money would go.

[Anon1210]

We compared the CRV to Hyundai last year and the Hyundais were more attractive in many ways.

I can't see how the CRV would beat the newer gen Tucson.

[kDawgg]

I'd take the Hyundai. <--- 5 years ago those words would have never came out of my mouth

[mchatchet1]

Hyundai would be my first choice out of all of them!!!!!!

[cougar]

Quote, originally posted by 1SICKLEX »

I understand its completely competent and does its job but its amazing people will buy such an ugly vehicle in droves.

Ask RX owners? *runs*

[IsraelGT]

Where is C&D's winner and best seller the Rav4? not available is a weak excuse and makes this whole test not worthy.

Subaru should start mating the 5-speed (which they have) or the new CVT to the 4 cyl engines. I just don't understand why they even have a four speed gearbox.

[Moodyblues]

I actually thought the CR-V was attractive, but that is subjective.

It's also just a really well thought out car, and there are a lot of small details that add up to making it the post appealing package (at least to me, and I actually was just in this market). For example, take the rear seats. Like other cars, they fold forward and up, to give a larger storage area (at the expense of having the seats available). But in addition, they actually slide forward several inches (seems like at least a half foot) while remaining fully flush with the floor and useable as seats. And this function is split 60/40 in the middle row. Its great, because if you have an object that you want to put in the back that dosn't fit the floor space, you can shift the seats forward to create more space without losing your use of them (but at the expense of those passenger's leg room). It may sound trivial, but when you have a brand new baby and are dealing with packing a car, and your stroller ends up being two inches too long, its the difference between sanity and a total meltdown.

Also, the driving dynamics really are well refined for a car of this type. I've driven the Toyota, and it just seems to wallow all over the road--it actually makes me naseous.

[VW PAUL]

Where is my Tiguan?

[whitejeep1989]

I never thought that I'd see the words "GMC" and "Fun to Drive" in such close proximity! It would seem, however, that the less expensive Chevy Equinox would have been the better choice (considering that one of their two dislikes was cost).

I favor the looks of the Chevy over any of the vehicle in this test, but the Terrain at least looks the most like a traditional SUV (which is a positive to me). The Subaru is probably my second favorite here, both inside and out. Kudos to Honda, however, for still leading the class with the oldest model represented.


Modified by whitejeep1989 at 11:46 AM 1-15-2010

[Impeccable]

To the CR-Vs credit the dashboard seems really well thoughtout

Very solid feling vehicle

[Air and water do mix]

Quote, originally posted by whitejeep1989 »

I never thought that I'd see the words "GMC" and "Fun to Drive" in such close proximity! It would seem, however, that the less expensive Chevy Equinox would have been the better choice (considering that one of their two dislikes was cost).

Yup. Between that and the mileage advantage I would have no reservations about buying the GM twins. We almost did (but bought used to save 10k.)

[BLK9GEN]

Did anyone else catch the observed fuel economy of these cute/utes? Ouch! Sure, they drive them hard, but I expect better than 16-18mpg from a small 4-cylinder utility vehicle in 2010. With that said, as much as I like the Terrain, if I were shopping strictly for a 4-cylinder small utility I would get the Tucson or CR-V. The price difference between the Terrain and the others is hard to ignore.

[BLK9GEN]

Quote, originally posted by IsraelGT »

Where is C&D's winner and best seller the Rav4? not available is a weak excuse and makes this whole test not worthy.

Obviously you have no idea how hard it is to get vehicles for a test such as this in our current economic climate.

[BLK9GEN]

Quote, originally posted by Air and water do mix »

Yup. Between that and the mileage advantage I would have no reservations about buying the GM twins. We almost did (but bought used to save 10k.)

Does that mileage advantage hold up in the real world though? With such a portly curb weight I have my doubts. In this test the Terrain was dead last in observed fuel economy.

I'm not trying to knock the Terrain because I think it is quite good, but I do wonder how GM is getting such great EPA numbers.

[IsraelGT]

Quote, originally posted by jwaters943 »

Obviously you have no idea how hard it is to get vehicles for a test such as this in our current economic climate.

How does it have anything to do with what I said?

As for your statement, it is an excuse.
I don't care how hard it is, I want results, and if this is the best test they can provide lacks the obvious CR-V competitor and best seller its not very interesting.
Plus C&D managed to pile quite the list, MT should too.

[Moodyblues]

Quote, originally posted by jwaters943 »

Did anyone else catch the observed fuel economy of these cute/utes? Ouch! Sure, they drive them hard, but I expect better than 16-18mpg from a small 4-cylinder utility vehicle in 2010. With that said, as much as I like the Terrain, if I were shopping strictly for a 4-cylinder small utility I would get the Tucson or CR-V. The price difference between the Terrain and the others is hard to ignore.

In a balanced mix of city/highway driving, I'm getting 24mpg in our CR-V.

[al@absolute]

We all know the Rav4 V6 is the clear winner of the bunch. the real test was done in this month's Car & Driver with 8 CUV's

[IsraelGT]

I think the Subaru with a new gearbox (CVT?) and freshened interior would have won.
I mean it was almost as quick (0.1sec slower to 60 than the CR-V and GMC) actually quicker in the passing than the GMC and the same as the rest, shortest stopping, best mpg and best handling numbers!

[Air and water do mix]

Quote, originally posted by jwaters943 »

Does that mileage advantage hold up in the real world though? With such a portly curb weight I have my doubts. In this test the Terrain was dead last in observed fuel economy. I'm not trying to knock the Terrain because I think it is quite good, but I do wonder how GM is getting such great EPA numbers.

I don't know for sure about real-world numbers, but as we're only needing 2wd and we drive mostly highway, I'd give the nod to GM.

[Professor Gascan]

Quote, originally posted by IsraelGT »

Plus C&D managed to pile quite the list, MT should too.

They did, but they also had a few compromises to do so. Both the Terrain and Tiguan were FWD in their test, while they wanted top spec AWD models.

I'm actually in the market for something in this size class. The Subaru gets knocked off right away because of the 4-speed auto. Too bad, because I like the rest of the vehicle.


Modified by Professor Gascan at 12:14 PM 1-15-2010

[BLK9GEN]

Quote, originally posted by al@absolute »

We all know the Rav4 V6 is the clear winner of the bunch. the real test was done in this month's Car & Driver with 8 CUV's

In a test of 4-cylinder sport utes, the V6 RAV4 wouldn't be included.

[IsraelGT]

Quote, originally posted by Professor Gascan »

They did, but they also had a few compromises to do so. Both the Terrain and Tiguan were FWD in their test, while they wanted top spec AWD models.

True. But both are not market leaders. I feel its foolish to have a test without a class leader like the Rav-4.
Now I don't say it would have won, but its too important to ignore.

[BLK9GEN]

Quote, originally posted by IsraelGT »

How does it have anything to do with what I said? As for your statement, it is an excuse. I don't care how hard it is, I want results, and if this is the best test they can provide lacks the obvious CR-V competitor and best seller its not very interesting. Plus C&D managed to pile quite the list, MT should too.

Yes, and as Gascan stated, their test included it's own set of compromises. Would you have been happier if they included a FWD V6 RAV4 against the 4-cylinder AWD CUVs in this test?

To cancel a comparison test simply because they can't get a vehicle you personally think they should have included is silly IMO. Yes the RAV4 has a great V6 engine, but in I-4 trim, there really is little "class-leading" about it. The cargo door opens on the wrong side, the interior is filled with cheap plastic, the styling is typical Toyota, and the 4-cylinder comes with an old school 4-speed auto. Without the V6 it's a very lackluster vehicle.


Modified by jwaters943 at 12:31 PM 1-15-2010

[IsraelGT]

Quote, originally posted by jwaters943 »

Yes, and as Gascan stated, their test included it's own set of compromises. Would you have been happier if they included a FWD V6 RAV4 against the 4-cylinder AWD CUVs in this test? To cancel a comparison test simply because they can't get a vehicle you personally think they should have included is silly IMO. Yes the RAV4 has a great V6 engine, but in I-4 trim, there really is little "class-leading" about it. The cargo door opens on the wrong side, the interior is feel with cheap plastic, the styling is typical Toyota. Without the V6 it's a very lackluster vehicle. Modified by jwaters943 at 12:26 PM 1-15-2010

Big difference is C&D made little compromises.
Now you can call my statements silly all you like (not called for, but whatever), I still think that even if you think the Rav would have lost (or should have lost) its still a a magor player, its still wins both sales and comparisons (Consumer reports & Car and driver)
As for the Rav-4 V6 it costs the same as the CR-V! Actually top models, the Rav4 is cheaper!!

Modified by IsraelGT at 8:39 PM 1-15-2010

[IsraelGT]

After looking at the prices, being that the CR-V is so expensive, why didn't they use a Forester XT? its priced the same as the Honda!
The Forester they used was full 5K cheaper!!!!

[1SICKLEX]

Quote, originally posted by IsraelGT »

After looking at the prices, being that the CR-V is so expensive, why didn't they use a Forester XT? its priced the same as the Honda! The Forester they used was full 5K cheaper!!!!

I will never understand the vehicles sent to comparison tests....