-->
No modern family starter kit is complete without a small crossover. On the automotive family evolutionary timeline, these crossovers live somewhere between a single person's sports car and a family's minivan. Young couples adore the sense of maturity and stability they represent. Crossovers can easily carry kids to school, bring groceries home, and still provide enough space for a a weekend Home Depot run. Older couples appreciate the easy ingress, egress, and utility after packing away the child seats for hobbies that require a folding second row.
Small crossovers typically provide more utility than a wagon, better gas
mileage than an SUV, and more fun than a big sedan. And sales show no
sign of slowing down. Segment sales climbed 9.3 percent in 2012, and all
of this year's test vehicles are selling strong. The Toyota RAV4's
sales jumped 30 percent last year; the Ford Escape (last year's compact
crossover winner) and Subaru Forester had modest increases; and the
Mazda CX-5 sold 43,000 units during its first year.
The newest crop of CUVs makes the case that
utility can still be fun to drive. Their firm suspensions, powerful I-4
engines, and quiet rides provide as much athleticism as some sporty
sedans.
Outside of Santa Barbara, California, we put four such small crossovers
to the test, traversing highways, twisty roads, and even a little dirt.
Our group consisted of the all-new Subaru Forester 2.5i Touring, which
comes standard with all-wheel drive, and front-drive versions of the
Toyota RAV4 Limited, the upgraded 2.5-liter Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring,
and the reigning champ, the Ford Escape SE 1.6 EcoBoost, which last
go-around defeated the Honda CR-V, Kia Sportage, CX-5 2.0, and VW
Tiguan.
All our top-trim CUVs cost about $30,000,
including navigation and Bluetooth connectivity, and each is rated at
over 30 mpg highway, making them ideal for a cross-country tour with the
Grateful Dead or Phish. Sad to say, those fun and footloose college
days are long past. It's time to revisit the reality of responsibilities
-- carrying people and stuff in quiet comfort -- without completely
surrendering the driving fun of that GTI you drove in college. Viewed
through that lens, which is the best small crossover?
"On one hand, it has entertaining qualities (nice set for such a tall
vehicle, decent steering response, quick and predictable reflexes),"
noted associate online editor Nate Martinez. "Yet it provided a bumpy
ride that families would likely not find ideal."
"I like the Escape's looks a lot. Its
connectivity is tops, and its driving dynamics are solid," added
technical director Frank Markus. "But there are corners cut, low-cost
evidence in some places (cargo hold), and wasted investment in others
(soft-touch but cheap-look dash)."
These inconsistencies moved last year's compact
crossover winner to this year's basement. Many testing numbers confirmed
our suspicions about the car's underwhelming performance. The Escape
tied with the Subaru Forester for the worst 0-60 time at 9.0 seconds,
had the worst passing time of 5.3 seconds to go from 45 to 65 mph, and
took the longest distance -- 126 feet -- to stop from 60 mph.
It also got the worst gas mileage of all the vehicles tested -- 21.1 mpg. The other three CUVs averaged at least 3 mpg more.
However, I thought the Escape provided the best
second row of the bunch, complete with a 115-volt outlet for kids to
keep their cellphones and games fully charged. The seats in both rows
were well-bolstered, firm, and comfortable. Then again, the Escape had
the least amount of passenger space in both rows. See? Yin and yang in
the least complimentary form.
The Escape, while filled with features such as a
huge sunroof, Sync, and a beautiful LCD screen on the center stack,
lacked many of the amenities families would appreciate every day.
"No push-button start,
power seat, backup camera, or leather (though I like the cloth) seats, and the price is comparable," said executive editor Ron Kiino. "Not good news for Ford."
Some of our disappointment might have come from high expectations, but
most of it came from the performance of the other vehicles. If the
Escape SE is the only crossover you drive, you'll likely love it
forever. But once you start to play the field, you'll learn where the
Escape falls short.
The 1.6-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine
acted like the tiny kid on the playground who could never keep up with
the bigger boys. If you compare the Escape with the Forester, which has
less horsepower and torque plus the burden of AWD, you'll see they have
exactly the same 0-60 times, but then the Forester pulls away as the
Escape begins to pant like it's out of breath.
"I like the neoclassic interior -- colors, big knobs, round vents,
stitched dash -- and overall design is refreshing for this group, which
is either too futuristic (Ford) or too bland/monotone (Subaru, Mazda),"
said Kiino.
"The plastic dash and door tops make me wonder
if the extra money should have gone to stitching a piece of vinyl on the
edge of the dash," said associate editor Rory Jurnecka. "The lower
center stack is an ergonomic nightmare. I can't see anything down there
without taking my eyes off the road for too long."
Worse yet, the RAV4 uses a center stack display screen that drivers
cannot see if they're wearing polarized sunglasses. Nonetheless, the
RAV4's interior caters more to function than artistic form, making it
comfortable and predictable. Toyota's Entune app, which connects your
smartphone, is way too involved, requiring the driver to input the
RAV4's VIN to register it.
There was a lot more agreement among editors on
the RAV4's performance, which most ranked as good. There was 176 hp
available from its 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine, and the six-speed
automatic transmission clicked through its gears quickly. Nothing
dazzled us, but nothing disappointed us, either.
"I'm happy with the power available," said associate editor Scott Evans. "It gets up to speed and passes fine."
The RAV4 also comes with two enhanced driving
modes: Eco and Sport. While on the road, a driver can press these
buttons to change the transmission mapping and throttle inputs -- one
provides a more economical ride; the other delivers something that's
supposed to resemble a sporty feel.
"Press the Eco button, and you instantly have to feed in more throttle
to maintain pace," noted Markus. "Eco feels like a linebacker just
climbed onboard. Dulls all responses to simulate big mass."
Most of us were disappointed with the rear
packaging, though the RAV4 offers the most cargo space. The Subaru and
Mazda offered quick releases from the back of the cargo area to lower
the seats with the liftgate open. The RAV4 and Escape did not.
With a mixed bag of features, the RAV4 is a safe
choice. Its legendary reliability and improved performance will put it
on many shopping lists. It's good, but it's no home run.
On paper, the Subaru Forester looks like a winner: all-wheel drive, big
interior, great visibility, and just enough quirkiness to stand out in
the crowded crossover segment. The engine feels like there's always
torque at the ready, and the new continuous variable transmission is a
vast improvement over the last gen's four-speed automatic, making the
Forester feel faster than some of the other test vehicles.
"Subaru's made a big leap forward with this CVT.
They've taken all the elastic out of it," said Evans. "Response feels
immediate. It makes the power very linear."
Added Markus, "The transmission makes the most of the engine's meager
170 horsepower, instantly selecting an appropriate ratio when you hit
the gas."
Indeed, but it also provided a noisy ride,
letting the sound of every bump echo around the cabin. Some of the
appointments inside the cabin weren't nearly as well-done as the
competition. For example, I found the stereo system abysmal. It's so
bad, if I bought a Forester, I'd immediately rip out the stereo and
replace it with an Audiovox cassette deck. The Subaru's touch screen
system makes changing stations difficult. It's confusing to use, and
requires your eyes to leave the road for too long, though you can
control your iPod and radio station presets through the steering wheel
controls.
We also encountered problems with Subaru's
EyeSight driver assist system (part of a $2400 package), which uses
stereovision cameras to provide lane departure and collision warnings,
and adaptive cruise control. As the sun was setting, its rays
temporarily blinded the cameras, disabling the system.
While the dash is less than impressive, the best-in-test passenger space throughout the cabin was noticeable and efficient.
"Very spacious all around, with big cupholders in both doors, which is
great for kids and passengers," said Martinez. "Subaru really does its
cargo holds well -- roomy and lined with rugged rubber."
Additionally, the Forester is fun to drive,
whether cruising along the highway or zipping along a mountain road. Its
steering is taut, but the body sometimes felt loose in hard cornering.
"The Forester seems to have a little excess body
motion. It's not quite as well-controlled as some others," said
Jurnecka. "Smaller bumps seem to find their way in, resulting in
vertical and side-to-side movement."
On the plus side, the Forester, despite its
standard AWD system, achieved the best fuel economy (24.9 mpg),
out-sipping its FWD competition.
Last year, the CX-5 placed second in the crossover comparison, because
its 2.0-liter, 155-hp powertrain held it back. This year, a new
2.5-liter four-cylinder engine and six-speed transmission powered it
past the others with 184 hp and 185 lb-ft of torque. During testing, it
had the fastest 0-60 time, beating everyone by nearly a second, and it
still managed to achieve 24.4 mpg in average fuel economy. More to the
point, the CX-5 was the most fun to drive.
"Stellar automatic," noted Kiino. "It's so
intuitive. Come out of a corner, roll on throttle, and it drops a gear
instantly and seamlessly."
On the road, the CX-5 feels nimble, in part because it is the lightest
of all the test vehicles, weighing in at 3355 pounds. That's 89 pounds
lighter than the Forester, the next lightest vehicle.
"Dynamically, the CX-5 is nothing but fun in the
twisties," logged Martinez. "Steering feel, weight transfer, low-end
torque, shifting -- it did it all well."
The more you challenge the CX-5, the more it wants you to challenge it.
"The Mazda continues to be the driver's choice,"
explained Evans. "It's so smooth through the corners; so easy to place
right where you want it. You can really fling it, and it'll just smile
and keep on going."
Mazda has also done a nice job of packaging the
CX-5 with family-friendly features. It was the only crossover to include
a 40/20/40-split second row. You can lower each piece of the row
independently while standing at the back of the vehicle with the
liftgate open by pulling a lever.
The CX-5 also uses a unique sunscreen/cargo area cover connected to the
tailgate instead of along the ledge of the second row, so it never gets
in the way when you fold the seats down. It's a small but ingenious
feature.
The front of the cabin uses quality materials
throughout, but nothing feels overstated. There's little flash but lots
of substance. The ride is smooth and quiet, but if you gun the throttle,
the CX-5 will push you back into the seat and put a grin on your face.
When life's crossroads bring you to a small
crossover, the CX-5 reminds you that the move isn't punishment. It's
just the next step. You can still have fun and carve a mountain road
every now and then.
Now get back to work.
4th Place: Ford Escape SE
Overly complicated interior and disappointing performance seal its fate. 3rd Place: Toyota RAV4
A safe bet is not an exciting one, and others outperform this perennial top-seller. 2nd Place: Subaru Forester 2.5 Touring
Fun, nimbleness, and all-wheel drive security are on the plus side, but poor interior choices keep it from the winner's circle. 1st Place: Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring
A new engine powers this crossover to the top. Well-planned inside and out.
By: Frank Markus
Say you've bought into the whole downsized, smaller-footprint lifestyle,
but you're just not patient enough to spend eight or nine painful
seconds achieving highway speeds. Well, two of our mainstreamers can be
had with sufficient juice to hit 60 mph in the sixes, with handling
upgrades to keep you smiling when the streets turn serpentine. Ford
offers its 2.0-liter, 240-hp, 270-lb-ft EcoBoost engine as a stand-alone
$1095 option on SE and SEL models, but you have to pop for the
top-shelf Titanium model to replicate the handling results the 19-inch
wheels gave our all-wheel-drive test car. Ordering Subaru's 2.0-liter,
250-hp, 258-lb-ft flat-four turbo requires a step up to the XT model,
which corrals a suite of related performance hardware into a $3000
upgrade. Which turbo CUV is best?
Ford's big EcoBoost engine represents an acceleration-performance
bargain. If you take a base SE and add $1750 for all-wheel drive and
$1095 for the 2.0-liter engine, you'll spend $28,810 -- an 11 percent
price premium that improves weight-to-power by some 23 percent and
boosts 0-60-mph on-ramp acceleration by 24 percent. That's pretty decent
return on investment, and 3500-pound towing (best in class) gets thrown
into the deal for the price of a $395 Class II hitch. The EPA reckons
your fuel economy will drop by 11 percent, but our real-world mileage
registered just 0.3 mpg less than the thirsty 1.6 front-driver's in 180
miles of freeway cruising and 250 back-road miles.
So the 2.0-liter is the logical engine of choice
in an Escape, but remember that you'll have to spend another $2385 for
the Titanium model to get the 19-inch footwear that helped our Escape
trump the rest of the field by a half-second on our figure-eight course.
Numbers aren't everything, however, and on the
back roads Kiino dinged the Escape for excessive roll and understeer in
tight corners, while Jurnecka found it offered "less control, making the
2.0 feel a little clumsy." Others complained that the transmission's S
mode still allowed decidedly unsporting mid-corner upshifts, and
grumbled about the substitution of a +/- toggle on the shifter for
proper paddles. We universally adore the Escape's exterior styling and
innovative features such as the hands-free tailgate, but in the end, we
had trouble swallowing the $34,735 as-tested price, given the "low-rent
and gimmicky dash that reminds [Kiino] of Darth Vader's helmet."
If you're drag racing other CUVs, the Forester XT trips the lights 0.4
second ahead of the Escape, going 7 mph faster. It's also a pretty good
performance bargain: The XT gear adds 12 percent to the price and boosts
0-60 performance by 31 percent. Sure, towing stays at 1500 pounds, and
EPA combined fuel economy drops by 7 percent relative to the 2.5-liter
Forester, but our real-world mpg was identical to the Escape 2.0's (20.8
mpg). And while the Escape wins a figure-eight race, our panelists
preferred the Subie's twisty-road dynamics. "Suspension's a little more
buttoned-down; steering feels solid. All around a little more fun to
drive," declared Evans. "Imparts a confidence-inspiring feel," concurred
Kiino. "Holy mid-range pull, Batman!" exclaimed Nate "Robin" Martinez.
Clearly, Subaru's efforts paid off in upsizing
the wheels, tires, and brakes; tweaking the springs, dampers, and roll
rate; reinforcing the rear suspension cradle; and giving the CVT three
programmable settings -- I for "intelligent" (optimizing fuel economy), S
for peak wide-open-throttle acceleration with six artificial gear
ratios to paddle through, and S# for sharper throttle response and
sportier feeling paddle shifts through eight ratios.
On the downside, Subie's glitchy
telematics/connectivity system, controlled either by a low-res Atari-era
touch screen or cumbersome voice recognition, is pathetic compared with
Ford's second-gen Sync. The Aha radio app is inferior to Pandora and
the nav-traffic rerouting system cries wolf every 90 seconds in L.A.
traffic, so you end up stumbling into real jams. But at the end of three
days, all six of our testers proclaimed the Subaru the high- zoot
cute-ute they'd sooner park in their garages.
No modern family starter kit is complete without a small crossover. On the automotive family evolutionary timeline, these crossovers live somewhere between a single person's sports car and a family's minivan. Young couples adore the sense of maturity and stability they represent. Crossovers can easily carry kids to school, bring groceries home, and still provide enough space for a a weekend Home Depot run. Older couples appreciate the easy ingress, egress, and utility after packing away the child seats for hobbies that require a folding second row.
Small crossovers typically provide more utility than a wagon, better gas
mileage than an SUV, and more fun than a big sedan. And sales show no
sign of slowing down. Segment sales climbed 9.3 percent in 2012, and all
of this year's test vehicles are selling strong. The Toyota RAV4's
sales jumped 30 percent last year; the Ford Escape (last year's compact
crossover winner) and Subaru Forester had modest increases; and the
Mazda CX-5 sold 43,000 units during its first year.
The newest crop of CUVs makes the case that
utility can still be fun to drive. Their firm suspensions, powerful I-4
engines, and quiet rides provide as much athleticism as some sporty
sedans.
Outside of Santa Barbara, California, we put four such small crossovers
to the test, traversing highways, twisty roads, and even a little dirt.
Our group consisted of the all-new Subaru Forester 2.5i Touring, which
comes standard with all-wheel drive, and front-drive versions of the
Toyota RAV4 Limited, the upgraded 2.5-liter Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring,
and the reigning champ, the Ford Escape SE 1.6 EcoBoost, which last
go-around defeated the Honda CR-V, Kia Sportage, CX-5 2.0, and VW
Tiguan.
All our top-trim CUVs cost about $30,000,
including navigation and Bluetooth connectivity, and each is rated at
over 30 mpg highway, making them ideal for a cross-country tour with the
Grateful Dead or Phish. Sad to say, those fun and footloose college
days are long past. It's time to revisit the reality of responsibilities
-- carrying people and stuff in quiet comfort -- without completely
surrendering the driving fun of that GTI you drove in college. Viewed
through that lens, which is the best small crossover?
4th Place: 2013 Ford Escape SE
The Yin and Yang of Crossovers For every good quality we found with the Escape, we found an equally disappointing one.
"On one hand, it has entertaining qualities (nice set for such a tall
vehicle, decent steering response, quick and predictable reflexes),"
noted associate online editor Nate Martinez. "Yet it provided a bumpy
ride that families would likely not find ideal."
"I like the Escape's looks a lot. Its
connectivity is tops, and its driving dynamics are solid," added
technical director Frank Markus. "But there are corners cut, low-cost
evidence in some places (cargo hold), and wasted investment in others
(soft-touch but cheap-look dash)."
These inconsistencies moved last year's compact
crossover winner to this year's basement. Many testing numbers confirmed
our suspicions about the car's underwhelming performance. The Escape
tied with the Subaru Forester for the worst 0-60 time at 9.0 seconds,
had the worst passing time of 5.3 seconds to go from 45 to 65 mph, and
took the longest distance -- 126 feet -- to stop from 60 mph.
It also got the worst gas mileage of all the vehicles tested -- 21.1 mpg. The other three CUVs averaged at least 3 mpg more.
However, I thought the Escape provided the best
second row of the bunch, complete with a 115-volt outlet for kids to
keep their cellphones and games fully charged. The seats in both rows
were well-bolstered, firm, and comfortable. Then again, the Escape had
the least amount of passenger space in both rows. See? Yin and yang in
the least complimentary form.
The Escape's second row has a 115-volt outlet for kids to keep their cellphones and games fully charged
power seat, backup camera, or leather (though I like the cloth) seats, and the price is comparable," said executive editor Ron Kiino. "Not good news for Ford."
Some of our disappointment might have come from high expectations, but
most of it came from the performance of the other vehicles. If the
Escape SE is the only crossover you drive, you'll likely love it
forever. But once you start to play the field, you'll learn where the
Escape falls short.
The 1.6-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine
acted like the tiny kid on the playground who could never keep up with
the bigger boys. If you compare the Escape with the Forester, which has
less horsepower and torque plus the burden of AWD, you'll see they have
exactly the same 0-60 times, but then the Forester pulls away as the
Escape begins to pant like it's out of breath.
3rd Place: 2013 Toyota RAV4 Limited
The Safe AND UNExciting Choice All-new for the 2013 model year, the RAV4 seemed to score hit after hit during testing. But all those hits were singles. It achieved more than 24 mpg during our testing and had the second-best 0-60 time. But its new interior evoked mixed emotions.
"I like the neoclassic interior -- colors, big knobs, round vents,
stitched dash -- and overall design is refreshing for this group, which
is either too futuristic (Ford) or too bland/monotone (Subaru, Mazda),"
said Kiino.
"The plastic dash and door tops make me wonder
if the extra money should have gone to stitching a piece of vinyl on the
edge of the dash," said associate editor Rory Jurnecka. "The lower
center stack is an ergonomic nightmare. I can't see anything down there
without taking my eyes off the road for too long."
Worse yet, the RAV4 uses a center stack display screen that drivers
cannot see if they're wearing polarized sunglasses. Nonetheless, the
RAV4's interior caters more to function than artistic form, making it
comfortable and predictable. Toyota's Entune app, which connects your
smartphone, is way too involved, requiring the driver to input the
RAV4's VIN to register it.
There was a lot more agreement among editors on
the RAV4's performance, which most ranked as good. There was 176 hp
available from its 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine, and the six-speed
automatic transmission clicked through its gears quickly. Nothing
dazzled us, but nothing disappointed us, either.
The RAV4 achieved more than 24 mpg during our testing and had the second-best 0-60 time
"Press the Eco button, and you instantly have to feed in more throttle
to maintain pace," noted Markus. "Eco feels like a linebacker just
climbed onboard. Dulls all responses to simulate big mass."
Most of us were disappointed with the rear
packaging, though the RAV4 offers the most cargo space. The Subaru and
Mazda offered quick releases from the back of the cargo area to lower
the seats with the liftgate open. The RAV4 and Escape did not.
With a mixed bag of features, the RAV4 is a safe
choice. Its legendary reliability and improved performance will put it
on many shopping lists. It's good, but it's no home run.
2nd Place: 2013 Subaru Forester 2.5 Touring
Good on Paper and Fun on the Road
On paper, the Subaru Forester looks like a winner: all-wheel drive, big
interior, great visibility, and just enough quirkiness to stand out in
the crowded crossover segment. The engine feels like there's always
torque at the ready, and the new continuous variable transmission is a
vast improvement over the last gen's four-speed automatic, making the
Forester feel faster than some of the other test vehicles.
"Subaru's made a big leap forward with this CVT.
They've taken all the elastic out of it," said Evans. "Response feels
immediate. It makes the power very linear."
Added Markus, "The transmission makes the most of the engine's meager
170 horsepower, instantly selecting an appropriate ratio when you hit
the gas."
Indeed, but it also provided a noisy ride,
letting the sound of every bump echo around the cabin. Some of the
appointments inside the cabin weren't nearly as well-done as the
competition. For example, I found the stereo system abysmal. It's so
bad, if I bought a Forester, I'd immediately rip out the stereo and
replace it with an Audiovox cassette deck. The Subaru's touch screen
system makes changing stations difficult. It's confusing to use, and
requires your eyes to leave the road for too long, though you can
control your iPod and radio station presets through the steering wheel
controls.
This CVT is a big leap forward for Subaru. They've taken all the elastic out of it. The power is very linear
"Very spacious all around, with big cupholders in both doors, which is
great for kids and passengers," said Martinez. "Subaru really does its
cargo holds well -- roomy and lined with rugged rubber."
Additionally, the Forester is fun to drive,
whether cruising along the highway or zipping along a mountain road. Its
steering is taut, but the body sometimes felt loose in hard cornering.
"The Forester seems to have a little excess body
motion. It's not quite as well-controlled as some others," said
Jurnecka. "Smaller bumps seem to find their way in, resulting in
vertical and side-to-side movement."
On the plus side, the Forester, despite its
standard AWD system, achieved the best fuel economy (24.9 mpg),
out-sipping its FWD competition.
1st Place: 2013 Mazda CX-5
More Power to the People Picking the Mazda CX-5 as the winner was easy for every editor. It simply stood above the competition with its graceful exterior, superb performance, and well-planned interior.
Last year, the CX-5 placed second in the crossover comparison, because
its 2.0-liter, 155-hp powertrain held it back. This year, a new
2.5-liter four-cylinder engine and six-speed transmission powered it
past the others with 184 hp and 185 lb-ft of torque. During testing, it
had the fastest 0-60 time, beating everyone by nearly a second, and it
still managed to achieve 24.4 mpg in average fuel economy. More to the
point, the CX-5 was the most fun to drive.
"Stellar automatic," noted Kiino. "It's so
intuitive. Come out of a corner, roll on throttle, and it drops a gear
instantly and seamlessly."
On the road, the CX-5 feels nimble, in part because it is the lightest
of all the test vehicles, weighing in at 3355 pounds. That's 89 pounds
lighter than the Forester, the next lightest vehicle.
"Dynamically, the CX-5 is nothing but fun in the
twisties," logged Martinez. "Steering feel, weight transfer, low-end
torque, shifting -- it did it all well."
The more you challenge the CX-5, the more it wants you to challenge it.
When life's crossroads bring you to a small crossover, the CX-5 reminds you that the move isn't punishment. It's just the next step
The CX-5 also uses a unique sunscreen/cargo area cover connected to the
tailgate instead of along the ledge of the second row, so it never gets
in the way when you fold the seats down. It's a small but ingenious
feature.
The front of the cabin uses quality materials
throughout, but nothing feels overstated. There's little flash but lots
of substance. The ride is smooth and quiet, but if you gun the throttle,
the CX-5 will push you back into the seat and put a grin on your face.
When life's crossroads bring you to a small
crossover, the CX-5 reminds you that the move isn't punishment. It's
just the next step. You can still have fun and carve a mountain road
every now and then.
Now get back to work.
4th Place: Ford Escape SE
Overly complicated interior and disappointing performance seal its fate. 3rd Place: Toyota RAV4
A safe bet is not an exciting one, and others outperform this perennial top-seller. 2nd Place: Subaru Forester 2.5 Touring
Fun, nimbleness, and all-wheel drive security are on the plus side, but poor interior choices keep it from the winner's circle. 1st Place: Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring
A new engine powers this crossover to the top. Well-planned inside and out.
2013 Ford Escape Titanium vs. 2014 Subaru Forester XT
Boosted BoxesBy: Frank Markus
Say you've bought into the whole downsized, smaller-footprint lifestyle,
but you're just not patient enough to spend eight or nine painful
seconds achieving highway speeds. Well, two of our mainstreamers can be
had with sufficient juice to hit 60 mph in the sixes, with handling
upgrades to keep you smiling when the streets turn serpentine. Ford
offers its 2.0-liter, 240-hp, 270-lb-ft EcoBoost engine as a stand-alone
$1095 option on SE and SEL models, but you have to pop for the
top-shelf Titanium model to replicate the handling results the 19-inch
wheels gave our all-wheel-drive test car. Ordering Subaru's 2.0-liter,
250-hp, 258-lb-ft flat-four turbo requires a step up to the XT model,
which corrals a suite of related performance hardware into a $3000
upgrade. Which turbo CUV is best?
Ford's big EcoBoost engine represents an acceleration-performance
bargain. If you take a base SE and add $1750 for all-wheel drive and
$1095 for the 2.0-liter engine, you'll spend $28,810 -- an 11 percent
price premium that improves weight-to-power by some 23 percent and
boosts 0-60-mph on-ramp acceleration by 24 percent. That's pretty decent
return on investment, and 3500-pound towing (best in class) gets thrown
into the deal for the price of a $395 Class II hitch. The EPA reckons
your fuel economy will drop by 11 percent, but our real-world mileage
registered just 0.3 mpg less than the thirsty 1.6 front-driver's in 180
miles of freeway cruising and 250 back-road miles.
So the 2.0-liter is the logical engine of choice
in an Escape, but remember that you'll have to spend another $2385 for
the Titanium model to get the 19-inch footwear that helped our Escape
trump the rest of the field by a half-second on our figure-eight course.
If you're drag racing other CUVs, the Forester XT trips the lights 0.4
second ahead of the Escape, going 7 mph faster. It's also a pretty good
performance bargain: The XT gear adds 12 percent to the price and boosts
0-60 performance by 31 percent. Sure, towing stays at 1500 pounds, and
EPA combined fuel economy drops by 7 percent relative to the 2.5-liter
Forester, but our real-world mpg was identical to the Escape 2.0's (20.8
mpg). And while the Escape wins a figure-eight race, our panelists
preferred the Subie's twisty-road dynamics. "Suspension's a little more
buttoned-down; steering feels solid. All around a little more fun to
drive," declared Evans. "Imparts a confidence-inspiring feel," concurred
Kiino. "Holy mid-range pull, Batman!" exclaimed Nate "Robin" Martinez.
| 2013 Ford Escape Titanium | 2014 Subaru Forester XT | |
| BASE PRICE | $31,195 | $32,995 |
| PRICE AS TESTED | $34,735 | $36,220 |
| VEHICLE LAYOUT | Front engine, AWD, 5-pass, 4-door SUV | Front-engine, AWD, 5-pass, 4-door SUV |
| ENGINE | 2.0L/240-hp/270-lb-ft turbo DOHC 16-valve I-4 | 2.0L/250-hp/258-lb-ft turbo DOHC 16-valve flat-4 |
| TRANSMISSION | 6-speed automatic | Cont variable auto |
| CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST) | 3791 lb (57/43%) | 3663 lb (58/42%) |
| WHEELBASE | 105.9 in | 103.9 in |
| LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT | 178.1 x 72.4 x 66.3 in | 180.9 x 70.7 x 66.4 in |
| 0-60 MPH | 6.8 sec | 6.2 sec |
| QUARTER MILE | 15.2 sec @ 88.8 mph | 14.8 sec @ 95.8 mph |
| BRAKING, 60-0 MPH | 123 ft | 111 ft |
| LATERAL ACCELERATION | 0.85 g (avg) | 0.79 g (avg) |
| MT FIGURE EIGHT | 27.3 sec @ 0.60 g (avg) | 27.8 sec @ 0.64 g (avg) |
| EPA CITY/HWY FUEL ECON | 21/28 mpg | 23/28 mpg |
| ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY | 160/120 kW-hrs/100 mi | 147/120 kW-hrs/100 mi |
| CO2 EMISSIONS | 0.82 lb/mi | 0.78 lb/mi |
| MT FUEL ECONOMY | 20.8 mpg | 20.8 mpg |
| 2013 Ford Escape SE | 2014 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring | ||
| POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS | |||
| DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT | Front engine, FWD | Front engine, FWD | |
| ENGINE TYPE | Turbocharged I-4, aluminum block/head | I-4, aluminum block/head | |
| VALVETRAIN | DOHC, 4 valves/cyl | DOHC, 4 valves/cyl | |
| DISPLACEMENT | 97.6 cu in/1599 cc | 151.8 cu in/2488 cc | |
| COMPRESSION RATIO | 10.0:1 | 13.0:1 | |
| POWER (SAE NET) | 173 hp @ 5700 rpm | 184 hp @ 5700 rpm | |
| TORQUE (SAE NET) | 184 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm | 185 lb-ft @ 3250 rpm | |
| REDLINE | 6500 rpm | 6500 rpm | |
| WEIGHT TO POWER | 20.4 lb/hp | 18.2 lb/hp | |
| TRANSMISSION | 6-speed automatic | 6-speed automatic | |
| AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO | 3.21:1/2.39:1 | 4.62:1/2.77:1 | |
| SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR | Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar | Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar | |
| STEERING RATIO | 15.2:1 | 15.5:1 | |
| TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK | 2.5 | 2.7 | |
| BRAKES, F;R | 11.8-in vented disc; 11.0-in disc, ABS | 11.7-in vented; 11.9-in disc, ABS | |
| WHEELS, F;R | 7.5 x 17-in, cast aluminum | 7.0 x 19-in, cast aluminum | |
| TIRES, F;R | 235/55R17 99H Continental ContiProContact E | 225/55R19 99V Toyo A23 M+S | |
| DIMENSIONS | |||
| WHEELBASE | 105.9 in | 106.3 in | |
| TRACK, F/R | 61.5/61.6 in | 62.4/62.5 in | |
| LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT | 178.1 x 72.4 x 66.3 in | 179.3 x 72.4 x 65.7 in | |
| GROUND CLEARANCE | 7.9 in | 8.5 in | |
| APPROACH/DEPART ANGLE | 21.0/27.7 deg | 18.6/24.4 deg | |
| TURNING CIRCLE | 38.8 ft | 36.7 ft | |
| CURB WEIGHT | 3528 lb | 3355 lb | |
| WEIGHT DIST, F/R | 58/42% | 58/42% | |
| TOWING CAPACITY | 2000 lb | 2000 lb | |
| SEATING CAPACITY | 5 | 5 | |
| HEADROOM, F/R | 39.9/39.0 in | 39.0/39.0 in | |
| LEGROOM, F/R | 40.4/36.8 in | 41.0/39.3 in | |
| SHOULDER ROOM, F/R | 56.0/55.3 in | 57.5/55.5 in | |
| CARGO VOLUME | 68.1/34.3 cu ft | 65.4/34.1 cu ft | |
| TEST DATA | |||
| ACCELERATION TO MPH | |||
| 0-30 | 2.7 sec | 2.7 sec | |
| 0-40 | 4.3 | 4.2 | |
| 0-50 | 6.4 | 5.9 | |
| 0-60 | 9.0 | 8.1 | |
| 0-70 | 11.9 | 10.8 | |
| 0-80 | 15.6 | 14.2 | |
| 0-90 | 20.2 | 18.8 | |
| PASSING, 45-65 MPH | 5.3 | 4.4 | |
| QUARTER MILE | 16.7 sec @ 82.5 mph | 16.3 sec @ 84.5 mph | |
| BRAKING, 60-0 MPH | 126 ft | 125 ft | |
| LATERAL ACCELERATION | 0.81 g (avg) | 0.79 g (avg) | |
| MT FIGURE EIGHT | 28.3 sec @ 0.55 g (avg) | 28.3 sec @ 0.56 g (avg) | |
| TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH | 1800 rpm | 2000 rpm | |
| CONSUMER INFO | |||
| BASE PRICE | $25,895 | $28,415 | |
| PRICE AS TESTED | $29,750 | $30,340 | |
| STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL | Yes/yes | Yes/yes | |
| AIRBAGS | Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, driver knee | Dual front, front side, f/r curtain | |
| BASIC WARRANTY | 3 yrs/36,000 mi | 3 yrs/36,000 mi | |
| POWERTRAIN WARRANTY | 5 yrs/60,000 mi | 5 yrs/60,000 mi | |
| ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE | 5 yrs/60,000 mi | 5 yrs/unlimited mi | |
| FUEL CAPACITY | 15.1 gal | 14.8 gal | |
| EPA CITY/HWY ECON | 23/33 mpg | 25/32 mpg | |
| ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY | 147/102 kW-hrs/100 mi | 135/105 kW-hrs/100 mi | |
| CO2 EMISSIONS | 0.73 lb/mi | 0.70 lb/mi | |
| MT FUEL ECONOMY | 21.1 mpg | 24.4 mpg | |
| RECOMMENDED FUEL | Unleaded regular | Unleaded regular | |
| 2014 Subaru Forester 2.5 Touring | 2013 Toyota RAV4 Limited | ||
| POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS | |||
| DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT | Front engine, AWD | Front engine, FWD | |
| ENGINE TYPE | Flat-4, aluminum block/heads | I-4, aluminum block/head | |
| VALVETRAIN | DOHC, 4 valves/cyl | DOHC, 4 valves/cyl | |
| DISPLACEMENT | 152.4 cu in/2498 cc | 152.2 cu in/2494 cc | |
| COMPRESSION RATIO | 10.0:1 | 10.4:1 | |
| POWER (SAE NET) | 170 hp @ 5800 rpm | 176 hp @ 6000 rpm | |
| TORQUE (SAE NET) | 174 lb-ft @ 4100 rpm | 172 lb-ft @ 4100 rpm | |
| REDLINE | 6000 rpm | 6200 rpm | |
| WEIGHT TO POWER | 20.3 lb/hp | 19.7 lb/hp | |
| TRANSMISSION | Cont variable auto | 6-speed automatic | |
| AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO | 3.70:1/2.11:1 | 3.82:1/2.32:1 | |
| SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR | Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar | Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar | |
| STEERING RATIO | 15.5:1 | 14.7:1 | |
| TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK | 3.1 | 2.7 | |
| BRAKES, F;R | 11.6-in vented disc; 10.8-in disc, ABS | 11.7-in vented disc; 11.2-in disc, ABS | |
| WHEELS, F;R | 7.0 x 17-in, cast aluminum | 7.5 x 18-in, cast aluminum | |
| TIRES, F;R | 225/60R17 98H M+S Yokohama Geolander G91 | 235/55R18 Bridgestone Dueler H/T 687 M+S | |
| DIMENSIONS | |||
| WHEELBASE | 103.9 in | 104.7 in | |
| TRACK, F/R | 60.9/61.1 in | 61.4/61.4 in | |
| LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT | 180.9 x 70.7 x 66.4 in | 179.9 x 72.6 x 65.4 in | |
| GROUND CLEARANCE | 8.7 in | 6.3 in | |
| APPROACH/DEPART ANGLE | 23.0/25.0 deg | 29.0/22.0 deg | |
| TURNING CIRCLE | 34.8 ft | 36.7 ft | |
| CURB WEIGHT | 3444 lb | 3463 lb | |
| WEIGHT DIST, F/R | 57/43% | 59/41% | |
| TOWING CAPACITY | 1500 lb | 1500 lb | |
| SEATING CAPACITY | 5 | 5 | |
| HEADROOM, F/R | 40.0/37.5 in | 38.9/38.9 in | |
| LEGROOM, F/R | 43.0/41.7 in | 42.6/37.2 in | |
| SHOULDER ROOM, F/R | 57.0/56.5 in | 57.3/55.4 in | |
| CARGO VOLUME | 68.5/31.5 cu ft | 73.4/38.4 cu ft | |
| TEST DATA | |||
| ACCELERATION TO MPH | |||
| 0-30 | 3.3 sec | 3.1 sec | |
| 0-40 | 4.8 | 4.5 | |
| 0-50 | 6.7 | 6.6 | |
| 0-60 | 9.0 | 8.9 | |
| 0-70 | 11.7 | 11.7 | |
| 0-80 | 15.3 | 15.3 | |
| 0-90 | 19.6 | 19.3 | |
| PASSING, 45-65 MPH | 4.5 | 4.6 | |
| QUARTER MILE | 16.9 sec @ 83.9 mph | 16.8 sec @ 84.1 mph | |
| BRAKING, 60-0 MPH | 120 ft | 122 ft | |
| LATERAL ACCELERATION | 0.78 g (avg) | 0.77 g (avg) | |
| MT FIGURE EIGHT | 28.6 sec @ 0.55 g (avg) | 28.6 sec @ 0.54 g (avg) | |
| TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH | 1700 rpm | 1800 rpm | |
| CONSUMER INFO | |||
| BASE PRICE | $30,820 | $27,855 | |
| PRICE AS TESTED | $32,220 | $29,969 | |
| STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL | Yes/yes | Yes/yes | |
| AIRBAGS | Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, driver knee | Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, driver knee, passenger thigh | |
| BASIC WARRANTY | 3 yrs/36,000 mi | 3 yrs/36,000 mi | |
| POWERTRAIN WARRANTY | 5 yrs/60,000 mi | 5 yrs/60,000 mi | |
| ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE | 3 yrs/36,000 mi | 2 yrs/25,000 mi | |
| FUEL CAPACITY | 15.9 gal | 15.9 gal | |
| EPA CITY/HWY ECON | 24/32 mpg | 24/31 mpg | |
| ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY | 140/105 kW-hrs/100 mi | 140/109 kW-hrs/100 mi | |
| CO2 EMISSIONS | 0.72 lb/mi | 0.73 lb/mi | |
| MT FUEL ECONOMY | 24.9 mpg | 24.3 mpg | |
| RECOMMENDED FUEL | Unleaded regular | Unleaded regular | |
No comments:
Post a Comment