Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    VWVortex


    Links back to The Car Lounge (opens in same window)
    Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
    Results 1 to 35 of 74

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

    1. Member DrewSXR's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 26th, 2000
      Location
      Sint Maarten
      Posts
      3,562
      Vehicles
      Lexus
      01-15-2010 01:04 PM #1
      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.


    2. 01-15-2010 01:06 PM #2
      We've had our CR-V for two months now and are thoroughly enjoying it. The car is quite comfortable and suprisingly responsive.

    3. Member Volvo_D's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 19th, 2009
      Posts
      3,316
      Vehicles
      2006 Volvo XC90 2.5T, current demo: 2010 Volvo XC60 T6
      01-15-2010 01:10 PM #3
      I want none of the above.
      What I do for a living? This is a small part of it www.lehmanvolvo.blogspot.com ...and now, so is this: www.infinitiofmechanicsburg.blogspot.com

    4. Banned
      Join Date
      Jul 30th, 2004
      Location
      Fancy in the Not fancy, CT
      Posts
      17,866
      01-15-2010 01:11 PM #4
      Cliff notes: Honda paid MT the most.


    5. Banned 1SICKLEX's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 8th, 2001
      Location
      ____________________
      Posts
      20,046
      Vehicles
      Beige hybrid fancy Toyota and other fancy dumb Toyotas
      01-15-2010 01:12 PM #5
      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.


    6. Member masa8888's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 5th, 2003
      Location
      Reston VA
      Posts
      6,784
      Vehicles
      2014 VW Passat TSI 2013 VW Golf TDI
      01-15-2010 01:36 PM #6
      The GMC sure does look the best out of this group.

    7. Moderator Oliver@triplezoom's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 30th, 1999
      Location
      Fredericton NB Canada
      Posts
      44,091
      Vehicles
      2006 Mazda6 GT wagon, 2007 Mazda3 GT sedan
      01-15-2010 01:42 PM #7
      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.


    8. Banned 1SICKLEX's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 8th, 2001
      Location
      ____________________
      Posts
      20,046
      Vehicles
      Beige hybrid fancy Toyota and other fancy dumb Toyotas
      01-15-2010 01:45 PM #8
      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.


    9. 01-15-2010 01:52 PM #9
      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.

    10. Member nickthaskater's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 17th, 2007
      Location
      Vancouver, BC
      Posts
      11,872
      Vehicles
      An imaginary one
      01-15-2010 01:56 PM #10
      The Hyundai is quite a smart looking little vehicle. Of the four, that's where my money would go.

    11. 01-15-2010 02:02 PM #11
      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.


    12. Member kDawgg's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 22nd, 2007
      Posts
      2,243
      Vehicles
      2003 Jetta 2.0
      01-15-2010 02:15 PM #12
      I'd take the Hyundai. <--- 5 years ago those words would have never came out of my mouth

    13. Member mchatchet1's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2nd, 2002
      Location
      MB,SC
      Posts
      482
      Vehicles
      2010 Hyundai Tucson
      01-15-2010 02:18 PM #13
      Hyundai would be my first choice out of all of them!!!!!!

    14. 01-15-2010 02:20 PM #14
      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*
      Bowtie wearing, tattooed, Mustang driver

      Quote Originally Posted by Fritz27 View Post
      I was more annoyed with the implication of being a Browns fan.

    15. Member IsraelGT's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 25th, 2001
      Posts
      6,084
      Vehicles
      FX50S, Sienna AWD ltd.
      01-15-2010 02:23 PM #15
      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.


    16. 01-15-2010 02:33 PM #16
      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.


    17. 01-15-2010 02:34 PM #17
      Where is my Tiguan?

    18. Member
      Join Date
      May 15th, 2007
      Location
      Wilmington, DE
      Posts
      12,196
      Vehicles
      2012 Jeep Wrangler
      01-15-2010 02:40 PM #18
      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

      Quote Originally Posted by Chris_V View Post
      You're a non-experienced person arguing with people that have decades of direct experience. Shut the **** up again.

    19. 01-15-2010 02:42 PM #19
      To the CR-Vs credit the dashboard seems really well thoughtout

      Very solid feling vehicle


    20. Senior Member Air and water do mix's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 5th, 2004
      Location
      Southern Indiana
      Posts
      21,390
      Vehicles
      '66 Beetle, '69 VW Fastback and an '08 Fit
      01-15-2010 02:46 PM #20
      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.)

      Quote Originally Posted by Boyz in da Park
      Proletariat, Bourgeoise - Everybody smellin' my potpourri...

    21. Member BLK9GEN's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 27th, 2001
      Location
      BLC, NV
      Posts
      12,214
      Vehicles
      Official Member of the Masochistic Black Car Owners Club
      01-15-2010 02:47 PM #21
      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.
      19-- Willys Jeep * 1989 Cadillac STS * 1991 Ford Escort GT * 1997 Honda Civic EX * 1997 BMW 528i * 1998 Honda CR-V EX * 1999 Acura 3.2 TL * 2000 VW Golf GLS 1.8T * 2001 Land Rover Range Rover 4.6 SE * 2002 VW Passat GLS 1.8T * 2002 Honda Civic EX * 2006 Lexus GS430 * 2006 Honda Pilot EX-L * 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander XLS * 2009 Hyundai Genesis 3.8 * 2010 Kia Forte Koup SX * 2011 Hyundai Sonata SE * 2013 Honda Accord Sport * 2014 Kia Soul

    22. Member BLK9GEN's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 27th, 2001
      Location
      BLC, NV
      Posts
      12,214
      Vehicles
      Official Member of the Masochistic Black Car Owners Club
      01-15-2010 02:48 PM #22
      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.


    23. Member BLK9GEN's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 27th, 2001
      Location
      BLC, NV
      Posts
      12,214
      Vehicles
      Official Member of the Masochistic Black Car Owners Club
      01-15-2010 02:52 PM #23
      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.


    24. Member IsraelGT's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 25th, 2001
      Posts
      6,084
      Vehicles
      FX50S, Sienna AWD ltd.
      01-15-2010 02:55 PM #24
      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.


    25. 01-15-2010 02:57 PM #25
      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.


    26. Member al@absolute's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 12th, 2005
      Location
      Scoudouc N.B
      Posts
      5,253
      Vehicles
      the big three and a deere
      01-15-2010 03:01 PM #26
      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
      14 Mustang GT | 80 Camaro Z28 | 37 Plymouth Coupe | 13 Focus 5door | 13 F250 XLT 6.7

    27. Member IsraelGT's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 25th, 2001
      Posts
      6,084
      Vehicles
      FX50S, Sienna AWD ltd.
      01-15-2010 03:05 PM #27
      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!

    28. Senior Member Air and water do mix's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 5th, 2004
      Location
      Southern Indiana
      Posts
      21,390
      Vehicles
      '66 Beetle, '69 VW Fastback and an '08 Fit
      01-15-2010 03:07 PM #28
      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.

      Quote Originally Posted by Boyz in da Park
      Proletariat, Bourgeoise - Everybody smellin' my potpourri...

    29. Member Professor Gascan's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 11th, 2002
      Location
      Canada
      Posts
      10,020
      01-15-2010 03:12 PM #29
      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

      Quis Mulgere Ipsos Lac Homines

    30. Member BLK9GEN's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 27th, 2001
      Location
      BLC, NV
      Posts
      12,214
      Vehicles
      Official Member of the Masochistic Black Car Owners Club
      01-15-2010 03:17 PM #30
      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.


    31. Member IsraelGT's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 25th, 2001
      Posts
      6,084
      Vehicles
      FX50S, Sienna AWD ltd.
      01-15-2010 03:18 PM #31
      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.


    32. Member BLK9GEN's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 27th, 2001
      Location
      BLC, NV
      Posts
      12,214
      Vehicles
      Official Member of the Masochistic Black Car Owners Club
      01-15-2010 03:22 PM #32
      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


    33. Member IsraelGT's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 25th, 2001
      Posts
      6,084
      Vehicles
      FX50S, Sienna AWD ltd.
      01-15-2010 03:34 PM #33
      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


    34. Member IsraelGT's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 25th, 2001
      Posts
      6,084
      Vehicles
      FX50S, Sienna AWD ltd.
      01-15-2010 03:41 PM #34
      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!!!!

    35. Banned 1SICKLEX's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 8th, 2001
      Location
      ____________________
      Posts
      20,046
      Vehicles
      Beige hybrid fancy Toyota and other fancy dumb Toyotas
      01-15-2010 03:46 PM #35
      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....


    Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •