Well, guess what, Paul, Harvinder et al did a 5-SUV comparo from the C-segment category and the selections were all winners in their own rights. I know that I was actively considering some of these rides before I decided on the Black Bison.
Enjoy their write-up below :
Granted, the sport utility vehicle segment has a different luster
than that of more than a decade ago, when the class was fresh and
burgeoning, and manufacturers were falling over each other to fill the
slots in the new opening. Then, robustness was generally the operative
word, so an SUV had to be tough to tackle terrain and yet be compliant
enough for urban use. Not the easiest thing to manage, you can imagine.
Time – as well as trial and error – has seen the category become more
refined, and the sparkle these days is probably better at wooing
buyers. A more focused scope has come about, with the need to be able to
traverse the great outdoors in rugged fashion pretty much left behind,
like it should have been in the first place. Today’s SUV is very much a
suburban-centric offering, aimed at the urban crowd for which a sedan
doesn’t have enough space and presence, and a MPV too much, and boringly
so.
Now, most of us know how capable these vehicles are, taken on their
own, but how do they fare when pitted against each other? With that in
mind, we decided to take a closer look at how they match up, pitting
five examples – the Mitsubishi ASX, Nissan X-Trail, Honda CR-V, Hyundai
Tucson and Peugeot 3008 – in a quintet face-off to see how it all shapes
up.
There are other contenders, namely the new Kia Sportage, the Suzuki
Grand Vitara, the long-in-the-tooth Ford Escape as well as the likes of
the Chevrolet Captiva, for example, but adding more than what we ended
up with would have made the task unmanageable. It’s all nice to read a
nine or 10 SUV shootout, but doing one is another thing altogether.
That said, on with the show to see which one ends up as the king of this particular hill.
EXTERIOR
Danny says
The five SUVs assembled here range from a big box to one not much
bigger than the hatchback it’s based on, from building blocks to fluidic
sculptures, so there’s bound to be one to suit one’s taste. Agree?
I’m not much of an SUV kind of guy (the Audi Q5 is another matter),
and there is no overwhelming favourite for me either, but I like the
blend of sharp lines and compact proportions of the Mitsubishi ASX. This
deep shade of red probably isn’t the most flattering, and it could do
with a sportier set of wheels, but I like it best.
The most flamboyant of the group by a mile is the Hyundai Tucson.
It’s very eye-catching, and like Anthony, I like that muscular rear
three-quarters view the best. Not so in love with the fussy face, but
this is a great example of a self-confident, expressive design, as
opposed to the “play safe, don’t offend” looks of previous gen Koreans.
It’s a gamble, but it’s paying off big time for Hyundai.
Never liked the popping eyes + double grille look of the CR-V, which
for reasons unknown, brings a startled hippo to mind. The Honda is no
longer repulsive thanks to familiarity, but it’s not pretty either,
which brings us to the Peugeot. The 3008 is just too odd for me – the
proportions, overhangs, and that face – I just don’t get it. Would love
to interview the designer someday, just to know what inspired him. I
quite like how its MPV sibling 5008 looks, though one can’t fault the X-Trail for being a box, because that’s wholly
intentional on Nissan’s part. The carmaker says that first-gen X-Trail
owners (and there are many of them) love their SUV’s macho square cut
lines, so they made more of the same. And with more rivals going the
crossover route, the “keep it true” X-Trail may find itself serving a
large number of taste buds.
As they say, one man’s meat…
Harvinder says
Lets face it. Looks are somewhat important when you talk about cars
and it’s correct to assume so in this case. Good looking cars somehow
attract us, but at end the of the day, if a car is good looking to one
it doesn’t necessarily mean it is good looking to another. All
subjective, to say the least.
In the case of these five SUVs I must admit that two cars stand out
from the pack. One is the Peugeot 3008, while the other is the Hyundai
Tucson. I think you can safely guess why the 3008 is in my standout
list. Well, yes, you’re right, it stands out because it does look a
little quirky, perhaps a little too modern for today’s tastes.
Don’t get me wrong, the 3008 does have some good angles, but
definitely not as many compared to the rest of the line-up we have here.
The taillights remind me of strawberries for some reason, while the
front makes me think of JAWS. Weird, I know, but that’s what crossed my
mind. Then we have the Hyundai Tucson at the end of spectrum, something
that has gone through a lot to come this far.
At first glance, the Tucson strikes you as a good looking thing. Very
sweet and pleasant from almost any angle. Hyundai’s designers have been
working around the clock to come up with the designs they have now,
which I must say, are rather appealing. In this case, just like other
Hyundais at the moment, the form is treated with the fluidic design
concept and it’s working well here.
However, I do feel that the car is a little too ‘fluidic’ for me, if
you know what I mean. There’s a tad too much on the design lines, which I
consider the only off-putting thing the Tucson has in terms of design.
Nevertheless, that’s just me as the design seems to the be cup of tea to
many out there, and I can understand why.
As for Nissan X-Trail, I find this one a bit too utilitarian, a
little too boxy. It looks as though it has a lot of design elements that
doesn’t seem to fit well together. At times, I feel that some design
elements on the X-Trail are afterthoughts. The Honda CR-V seems like a
decent looking offering, with the right proportions and not overcooked.
However, I think the Tucson comes up ahead of the X-Trail and the CR-V
in the design department.
Among all the SUVs we have here, I consider the Mitsubishi ASX as the
SUV with the right balance in the looks category. I like the fact that
it has Mitsubishi’s trademark jet fighter grille. The aggressiveness is a
nice touch and it doesn’t breach the “too much” point in the scale. The
ASX looks very good from almost every angle, and is the only SUV here
that really looks like a car.
Overall, the Hyundai Tucson and the Mitsubishi ASX are my choices in
terms of design. Comparing both, I find that the Tucson is a bit too
flashy for me, probably like a model who has a little too much make up,
while the ASX feels about right.
Anthony says
The assembled bunch looked every bit the motley crew, what with the
box-like X-Trail mixing it up with the flowing Tucson, and the ASX and
3008 looking more crossover than SUV. An interesting mix of shapes, to
say the least.
From an aesthetics point of view, the X-Trail isn’t going to win any
contests for being the curviest creature, or indeed the sexiest thing on
four donuts. With a shape that feels like slabs chunked together, this
is very much a box on wheels. The utilitarian shape, however, hints at
the volumetric scope within, and you just know this one – which is
larger than the first-generation model – is going to offer loads of it.
Function over form, indeed.
The Tucson takes its place at the other end of the swing, and
showboats all those curves and swoops like it’s going out of fashion.
Certainly, there’s nothing reserved about how it parades its wares,
though I have reservations as to how the lines will hold up as time
progresses. I love the rear though, viewed straight on from behind; of
the five, it’s the derriere with the most flair and appeal.
As for the CR-V, the third-generation model is heading towards its
end of duty tour, but retains a balanced appeal about it. Not the most
exciting, the RE, but plying the safe route means the exterior has held
up well enough over the four years plus of its life cycle so far. For
sure, the buying public has found – and continues to find – its quiet
elegance to be more than agreeable, and this includes my other half; the
CR-V here happens to be her vehicle.
Meanwhile, the Peugeot rolls into the fray here looking a bit of an
oddity, like it doesn’t quite belong. It’s the smallest looking vehicle
of the bunch, and the shape drew mixed opinions from the team. I quite
like the front from certain angles, but for sure it’s not the type of
vehicle you’d gawk at the whole day. The European influence in its lines
is unmistakable though, and it does look very solidly hewn compared to
the Asian opposition.
Finally, the ASX. It’s the one with the leanest, most athletic
stance, essentially looking very much the prowler. The wedge front works
for me and the overall lines offer good proportionate scale, despite
its lack of overall mass.
Indeed, it’s my pick of the five from the exterior point of view, the
ASX. I’ve always preferred my cars lean and on the smaller side, and
while the 3008 may also be so, its disposition is a bit too soft and too
rounded for my taste. I’ve gotten so used to the CR-V it’s become a
familiar shoe, so it doesn’t have quite the charm it once had. You can
probably tell the X-Trail doesn’t work at all for me, and it never did
even with the first incarnation. The Tucson’s flash is striking though,
so it’s a close second in my books.
INTERIOR
Danny says
Throughout our test period, I spent the most time in the Nissan and
Peugeot, collecting the former and returning the latter to their owners.
I love the X-Trail’s cabin for its excellent view out (lots of glass,
square corners) and comfort. The fabric seats are big and cushy,
typically Nissan, and there’s nothing to learn or get used to – you just
step in and drive.
However, the spartan look and feel may be a disadvantage in the
showroom, making Nissan look stingy. But that’s not entirely true
either.
While the X-Trail lacks some basic kit such as climate control,
leather and buttons for the steering, as well as flashy toys such as the
Hyundai’s push start button/panoramic roof, Mitsu’s 2-DIN head unit or
Honda’s cool instrument panel, it’s the only car here to come with
electric adjustment for the driver’s seat as well bi-xenons, kit that
even the “fully-loaded” Euro-spec Peugeot doesn’t have. And if given a
choice, I’d have those over auto air con and auto cruise.
It’s a car that that the family will love as well. Tall seating
position, high roof, large windows and the useful boot trays with
compartments are good for road trips or ronda-ronda sessions.
The Peugeot is a good family car as well, if you have a small family
with young kids, that is. The expansive panoramic glass roof is
spectacular, but rear legroom is very tight. Passable if someone my
height is seated in front, but if they are tall, rear knee-room can go
down to almost nothing. The 3008 must be tried for size, because it’s
not for all.
It’s for those who want some sports car feel from their SUV. The
Pug’s driving quarters is very cozy and enclosed, with a sloping centre
stack and a tall centre console that divides the front section into two
distinct areas.
It’s very cockpit like, and the driver is boss, which matches the
driving character of the 3008. He/she is faced with plenty of toggle
switches and twin pod dials. There’s also the much boasted head-up
display (HUD), although I personally find this to be rather gimmicky.
Unlike BMW’s version, the image here is shot on a separate screen
that can be erected by a toggle switch, and although the image (only
digital km/h) can be adjusted for height, I still had to lower eye focus
to view it, defeating the very purpose of HUD. The operation of the
screen in our test car was also very noisy.
That aside, I wasn’t very comfortable with the angle of the left foot
rest, and my idle foot became quite restless as a result. This is an
unusual observation, since I’m usually immune to many ergonomic
challenges pointed out by Paul and Harve.
Step into the Honda CR-V and it becomes clear why this is THE SUV to
have for many upper middle-class households. It doesn’t have as many
toys as some other cars in this test, or even as much soft touch
plastics, but feels the most premium from behind the wheel. This isn’t
easy to explain, but the lighting, that nice MID between the dials, the
brushed trim, the tactile quality of the knobs and buttons, and the full
house centre stack gives off a full-function, technical and expensive
feel.
I also like the abundance of storage spaces and cubbies in the Honda,
derived from locating the gear lever on the centre stack. Rear
passengers are also in for a treat – legroom is superb in this company,
although it could feel even more spacious with a lighter coloured cabin,
as opposed to black.
The Mitsubishi ASX, which also has a dark room cabin, is much less
spacious than the CR-V inside, something the spec sheets won’t tell you –
the ASX’s 2,670 mm wheelbase is actually 50 mm longer than the Honda’s.
The good stuff surrounds the driver – nice sporty steering wheel,
long magnesium shift paddles, clear (almost VW/Audi like) dials – but
MMC has improved perceived quality over that in the Lancer.
The dash areas closest to occupants are now padded with soft touch
plastics, as are the door caps. The multi-info display is colourful and
high res, a big improvement over the jagged figures in the Lancer. Also,
the instantaneous FC bar also has a “bookmark” for the average done so
far, so there’s extra motivation to be light-footed, if that’s your
direction.
The head unit is the usual locally-fitted (by MMM) Kenwood system,
which isn’t the most user friendly, but it’s feature-packed (reverse
camera, DVD player, large full colour touch-screen, etc) and looks
impressive, so no complaints.
Last but not least, the Hyundai Tucson. Just like the bold shell,
Hyundai has gone for showcar dashboard design that matches the exterior
bravado. Lots of sweeping curves and elements means your eyes are in for
a workout. There’s this theme of two opposing kinks in the overall dash
mould, the centre stack as well as the steering wheel. As with modern
Hyundais, the theme is blue. I can understand the modern, techy appeal
of the Tucson’s dash, but personally I prefer something more subtle and
refined.
Plenty of adjustment available in the Tucson, so driving positions
for various sizes shouldn’t be a problem. Outward visibility is not
great in this group, a high waistline and shallow windows see to that.
Off the shoulder rear view is also poor, but with such a design, you
can’t win it all. The showroom appeal and many toys (keyless entry, push
button start, integrated stereo with USB, iPod and AUX input) might
delay the dreaded knuckle rap, which reveals hard plastics. They don’t
feel super nasty or cheap though, and is not an issue to many.
It’s also good that our 2.0 High Spec test car comes with a panoramic
glass roof (split into two, like the W211 Merc E-Class, Sonata YF),
since the cabin feels rather enveloping and dark in this company.
In terms of design, in and out, the Tucson is everything the X-Trail
isn’t, vice versa. One is unapologetically utilitarian and functional,
the other designed to wow and impress. I want some from both ends, and
like the CR-V’s blend of good comfort and space, plus premium feel
dashboard.
Harvinder says
The cabin is one of the most important things one should consider
when buying a car, and unfortunately many potential buyers or owners out
there spend less time thinking about a car’s interior before making the
decision. It is a place where the driver and his passengers will spend
most of the time throughout the ownership experience.
Before I continue with my bit on the interior, I must point out that
out of all the SUVs we have here, three are Japanese, one is Korean
while another is French. Now, I don’t think I need to emphasize that
when it comes interior, the European guys have been doing it well and
the Asian rivals, although some are pretty good, are still playing catch
up in this department.
To me, I feel that is is true in this case at least. The Peugeot 3008
to me, has the best interior when it comes to tactility and comfort for
the driver. As soon as you get into the driver’s seat, you’ll instantly
tell yourself that “this is not a driver’s seat, this is a cockpit”.
The driver’s section is truly like a jet-fighter’s cockpit with the
centre dash somewhat focused towards the driver.
Even the switches and knobs make you imagine you are in a car with
wings. The tactility of the interior is pretty good as well, with
soft-touch materials in the right places. Personally, I take seat
comfort seriously and it is important to have something that is able to
support your back properly. It pays when you have those long distance
drives and to me, the seat also plays a role to making you feel that you
are in a premium vehicle.
The French have got it right with the 3008. The front seats are very
comfortable and they offer the best support among all SUVs we have here.
I particularly like the headrest design, which reminds me of the ones
used in the W211 Mercedes-Benz E-Class. You can tilt it forward to
better support your lower neck.
Other features like the glass roof, the rear two-piece tail gate,
dual zone air-conditioning and electric parking brake is a nice touch
too, but I do agree with Danny on the part HUD portion which is a bit
tricky to use. The major downside of the 3008’s interior is that the
rear legroom is a little on the tighter side of things. It’s not a very
comfortable place for large-sized occupants. Also, it would be great to
have a fully-electric front seat, at least for the driver.
The Nissan X-Trail is not a bad place to be in either. It does look a
bit utilitarian on the inside, with a rather simple feel to things, but
it is quite comfortable and the space, including the rear cabin, is
pretty good too.
If you’re okay with the simplistic approach, the X-Trail’s interior
can be a nice place for you to be in. There are plenty of compartments,
including a double luggage floor system, as well as a 6-way adjustable
power seat for the driver, which interestingly is not offered with rest
of the SUVs we have here.
The Honda CR-V also has a decent interior and for some reason, it
does feel a little premium despite not having many soft-touch surfaces.
Honda seems to be good in doing this, even with less expensive cars like
the entry level City.
To me, the most striking thing about the CR-V’s interior is its rear
legroom, which is very good. You’d be a very happy rear passenger; it’s
reminiscent of the Civic, which also offers good legroom space. Just
like the X-Trail, storage compartments are very much adequate in the
Honda. There are also features like dual zone air-conditioning and
cruise control, similar to the 3008.
Just like the exterior, the interior of the Hyundai Tucson also has
carries over the flowing design. It looks pretty good if you ask me, but
there is a let down though. The interior does not feel premium and it
is even outperformed by the X-Trail, if you ask me. There are hard
plastics everywhere and even for a car that has done over 30,000
kilometers, the interior felt worn a little, which isn’t a good thing.
Don’t get me wrong, the design is nice, but you have to wonder if
it’ll last the distance. Things like the start-stop button are nice to
have, but it does little to overshadow the flaws. The ASX has a decent
interior which doesn’t look cluttered and at the same time, it doesn’t
look cheap as well.
The seating position for the driver is just about right, making it a
better option for those who like a sporty feel behind the wheel. I find
that the full colour high-resolution LCD multi-information display
nestled in between the instrument gauges quite a cool feature to have,
thanks to a fuel consumption monitor that incorporates both
instantaneous as well as average readings. The rear cabin could have
used a little more legroom though.
Overall, I find that the Peugeot 3008 has the best interior; I can
make do with the smaller rear cabin, although I really feel that an
electric driver’s seat should have been included.
Anthony says
From an interior perspective, the differences in character continue
to show. With practically most of the time being spent in the driver’s
seat during the comparo, there was little time to delve in detail the
sub-practicalities of things such as boot space and rear seat comfort
levels, save for the CR-V, which I’m, erm, rather intimate with.
First up, the Tucson, which lends its allure through more sweeping
contours on the inside, as well as with a host of tech bling – there’s
stop-start button ignition and an auto dimming rear view central mirror,
for starters. These mask the lack of items such as cruise control and
going the manual air-conditioning route.
If there’s a gripe with the Tucson’s interior, it’s with the
presentation – no complaints about how the layout is presented, but the
design elan notwithstanding, the hard-looking plastics cheapen the
visual appeal considerably. There are also questions about material
durability. The interior of the evaluator, with more than 30k on the
clock, looked a bit worse for wear. For example, the engine stop-start
button’s wording was already looking quite worn, hence the questions.
Still, there’s much more fanfare in it than on the likes of the
X-Trail and ASX, which both feature rather austere cabins. The ASX, with
its blackened interior, feels the more spartan of the two, and is
reminiscent of the Lancer sedan’s bare approach. It’s more premium in
feel though than the Lancer material-wise, so points for this.
The ASX also doesn’t feel as small as you think it would be. The
cabin is intimate, but not claustrophobic, even if larger-sized drivers
in the Mitsubishi look like they’re driving a Hyundai Getz (not my
words). The driving enthusiast will find much to like in this one, with
everything presented in line with the vehicle’s sporty pretensions, as
will those who like their porridge plain.
Meanwhile, the X-Trail offers very much the same path, presenting a
cabin that looks plain bare upon first glance. The plastics are
typically Nissan, serviceable but not the final word in premium. This
plainness is offset by plenty of practical features – cubby holes and
storage space are to be found galore, and items such as rear air-con
vents, for example, add to the list. And that volume suggested from the
outside is translated when you’re in the vehicle. It feels downright
spacious, the X-Trail does.
A note too about its seat comfort, which is the softest in terms of
comfort of all the five vehicles; it is a little bit too soft for my
liking, especially over long distances, but many will no doubt value its
plushness. The Peugeot’s front seat, however, is the standout for me.
The Peugeot’s cabin also features the best material and trim, clean
and unfettered, but all hewn together in solid fashion and very elegant
in its presentation. Cabin space, however, feels pinched, and if you
have tall occupants in front, it’s bad news for those in the rear, where
legroom is concerned.
And the 3008 still feels lacking in open and accessible storage
space, as previously noted when I drove it during its original media
test drive a good while back – attempts to house wallet, phone, keys and
cigarettes without having to call in the large storage box were as
challenging as before. I still think there’s a photon torpedo launcher
housed underneath that huge-assed centre console tunnel, but the firing
button is proving rather elusive to find.
So, of the lot, my pick is with the CR-V’s interior. It’s easy to
forget how well Honda gets it right where it matters – aside from the
excellent rear legroom, the cabin presentation has a premium feel to it,
even if there’s not much bling and fanfare in terms of tech and
features.
The plastics may be hard, but they don’t look cheap, and the centre
console layout, along with the instrument cluster – especially lit up at
night – is fetching. It’s not quite Pug territory, but it’s well ahead
of the rest of the group. Storage in the CR-V’s front is more than
adequate, though there are quirks elsewhere, like where the 12V socket
is placed, which is set too low and difficult to access, especially in
the dark.
Still, throw in items such as cruise control and auto climate control
as well as the small, almost imperceptible tactile bits (the feel of
the switchgear operation is a perfect example) and you can see exactly
how the Honda scores where it counts.
PERFORMANCE
Danny says
Although it’s no sports car, the Peugeot is the sports car of the
group. It’s the only Continental on call here, and preaches Europe’s
downsizing philosophy – direct injection, smaller capacity, forced
induction. The 156 hp it makes is no big deal in our 2.0L SUV party, but
it’s the turbo engine’s 240 Nm from a mere 1,400 rpm that makes all the
difference here.
This gives the 3008 useful punch away from standstill, and good
flexibility. Although the pace is subdued a little from the 308 Turbo,
which it shares its drivetrain with, possibly due to the extra weight,
it should be more than enough go for those shopping in this segment. The
official 0-100 km/h time is 9.5 seconds – it practice, the 3008 feels
faster than that. As usual, it’s smooth revving and quite linear in
delivery.
We must also mention the six-speed automatic gearbox, which is a
quantum leap over the “Porsche Tiptronic” four-speeder of old. It’s
still not the fastest or snappiest torque converter auto around, but it
no longer has a mind of its own, and is competent enough to not annoy.
The “sports car of the group” rep isn’t just from the pace, though.
The 3008 feels quite agile and pointy in the bends, and the way the car
resists body roll is impressive. This flat stance encourages one to push
harder, since there’s no clumsy weight transfer to put you off. No, it
doesn’t claw into corners like a hot hatch, but one can at least make
the most of what he has in the Peugeot with ease. Sacrifices? Ride
comfort is not the best, others soak up bumps better.
If there’s an element from the other SUVs I would want in the
Peugeot’s drive, it’s the ASX’s steering. Direct and blessed with good
feel, the Mitsu’s helm is as “sporty” as the wheel itself looks. The ASX
is also good to drive, but one downside is the lack of cruising
refinement. There’s a good deal of road/tyre roar seeping into the
cabin. I wonder if a tyre swap would help…
The ASX carries over the Lancer’s 4B11 engine and CVT gearbox. I’m
not a fan of CVT, but the transmission works well, and there’s always
the manual mode when the mood arises, although it still doesn’t feel
100% natural in those six virtual ratios.
For non-fans, the company in the best position to persuade is Nissan.
Their Xtronic CVT works like a charm in the Sylphy and the X-Trail we
have here. It’s the CVT, as advertised. Mostly smooth and cohesive like
the best torque converter autos (except pedal to metal from rest,
perhaps), I never once used the manual mode because I couldn’t have done
it better. There’s real connection between the speedo and tacho needle,
and the drivetrain feels almost resistance-free as you pull away.
Stats that read 139 PS and 198 Nm look below par on paper, but the
X-Trail’s smooth flowing style meant that I didn’t crave for more go.
The only time it felt lacking was when we were searching for top speed
way above the speed limit – a lot of effort was needed to get past the
130-140 km/h zone.
That easygoing drivetrain is part of a similarly likeable package.
The X-Trail’s ride comfort is best of the lot for me, soaking up bumps
like they were never there and staying rock steady on the highway. We
get our supply from Indonesia, so perhaps it’s the local tuning to suit
the harsh roads there at work? Whatever it is, our roads aren’t great
either, so it’s all good.
All these fit well with a tall ride height with cushy seats and good
all round visibility, making the X-Trail a great urban machine and a
soothing long distance one.
The Honda CR-V would have also been a good highway cruiser, if not
for its hyper sensitive steering. It’s good for the most part, but I
found myself feeding constant small inputs to keep it on course during
highway drives. It’s not a major or safety issue, but it meant that I
wasn’t fully relaxed, and my hands got tired after awhile.
Other than that, the popular segment leader is typically Honda. The
engine revs happily with a familiar mechanical buzz, and is quite nice
to work on, although more grunt would have been very welcome here. The
five-speed auto is as precise and quick as ever. The CR-V’s well judged
ride is firm, but never crashy or noisy.
Which leaves the Tucson. I truly admire Hyundai’s brave new direction
with its latest products, which has dramatically increased desirabilty.
Their cars are now technically on par with class leaders, if not
better, and there are plenty of toys to maximise showroom appeal. For me
though, the most effective weapon in their new arsenal is design,
capturing the imagination of many who previously overlooked Korean
wheels. Perfect cars then?
Not yet. Technically, all’s good, but the Tucson (and Sonata) aren’t
class leaders in subjective matters. For instance, while the 2.0 Theta
II engine’s 166 PS and 197 Nm sound impressive and provide decent go,
the engine isn’t the smoothest revving four-pot around, and is quite
resonant in the third half of the rev range. The six-speed gearbox,
while competent, isn’t as intuitive as the Honda’s, for instance.
There’s not a lot of mechanical grip either – I’ve seen the ESP light
come on in corners where I didn’t expect any help. And steering, a very
subjective thing, is something that Hyundai-Kia has yet to master.
But these finer points are invisible to the majority of buyers, so we
don’t blame Hyundai for not putting “driving pleasure” and “finesse” as
top priority. If I were them, my resources would have went into the
exact same areas: on paper spec, equipment to wow and bold design.
Strangely, I ended up preferring the X-Trail in this segment,
although the Peugeot’s pace and Mitsu’s steering are on the wish list.
For me, SUVs are family cars, and the Nissan’s ride comfort, ease of use
and silky drivetrain is the best combo here. Looking in the rear view
mirror, my family agrees too!
Harvinder says
Now to the part I love the most. Let us start off with the CR-V. It
comes with a 2.0 litre i-VTEC that makes 148 hp and 190 Nm of torque
from 4,200 rpm. The numbers are anything but impressive, and
unfortunately with 1,540 kg to haul it feels as if the CR-V can do with a
more powerful engine.
Acceleration does feel heavy but once you’ve reached a set cruising
speed, the power issues fades away, until you slam the accelerator to
overtake the car in front of you, that is. The shifting of its
five-speed automatic is decent enough and the electric power steering
feels a little heavy at times, but it’s not really an issue to me.
Its ride comfort is good, with no irritating bumpiness whatsoever. In
terms of handling, I find the CR-V performance at an average level. The
X-Trail’s MR20DE twin-cam engine has less power than the CR-V, at 137
hp, though torque is slightly higher, 198 Nm to be exact, from 4,400
rpm. It does pull away slightly better than the CR-V, and it uses
Nissan’s Xtronic CVT transmission, with a six-speed manual mode.
To be honest. I am not a fan of the CVTs – I find the sound that the
engine makes because of it being rather irritating. However, the Xtronic
isn’t that bad and it works smoothly, or fluidly, to use another term.
Acceleration is effortless; however, it does take a while for it to
achieve higher speed. In terms of ride comfort, the X-Trail does well in
absorbing bumps and irregularities. At the same time it is also firm
enough for high speed travel. The Nissan boys have got it right with
this one.
The Hyundai Tucson’s Theta II 2.0 litre engine is quite powerful on
paper, with 164 hp and 197 Nm of torque at 4,600 rpm, and carries over
the power into actual driving. It does however tend to sound a little
rough when you rev it hard. The power unit is paired with a six-speed
slush box, which does its job well enough, although it could use a
little more refinement.
This applies to the drivability of the Tucson as well. It handles
good enough for normal day-to-day driving and its un-refinement is
easily hidden if you don’t push the car hard. Even so, you can actually
toss the Tucson around corners, though it would definitely benefit from a
more refined handling and a steering with a better feel. In terms of
ride quality, this Korean seems to be a bit stiff, a little bumpier on
the rough roads.
The Mitsubishi ASX is one car that seems to excel in the handling
department. This is one SUV or crossover or what ever you fancy that
handles like a car. Agile and nimble would be the right word to describe
the ASX. It is no Megane RS, but among its rivals in this shootout, it
is right at the top.
You can practically chuck it around bends and it won’t bite back, as
long as you don’t go overboard. The chassis seems to communicate with
you well through the steering wheel, which also offers a good feel. In
terms of power, it is decent with its 2.0 litre DOHC MIVEC putting out
148 hp , identical to the CR-V, and 197 Nm of torque at 2,400 rpm.
Although quite similar in terms of power figures, you do feel more
punch in the ASX. This also joins the X- Trail in offering a CVT unit
with six-speed manual mode.
Finally we have the Peugeot 3008, which doesn’t really give us an
apple to apple comparison in terms of engine type when put against the
other four SUVs we have here. There are two major differences. First up
is the fact that the engine is a 1.6 litre, instead of a 2.0 litre with
the rest. Secondly, it is force-inducted. It is basically the same
engine as the MINI, the rather famous 1.6 litre Prince unit.
It makes 156 hp and most importantly, 240 Nm of torque from as low as
1,400 rpm. The higher torque at lower revs proves to be very
instrumental in zipping around traffic. Overall, you can safely say that
3008 is the most powerful of the lot, all thanks to the turbo, so no
issues at all with acceleration and getting fast quickly. The Pug uses a
good old six-speed transmission, which works without a fuss.
The ride comfort is pretty good, with high levels of comfort too. In
terms of handling, you can take some pretty serious corners with it, but
I still prefer the ASX. Something about the latter’s character makes
the whole driving experience sportier. Overall, my pick would be the ASX
in regards to overall performance from the SUVs we have here.
Anthony says
Ambling along the highway isn’t how one should define which of the
lot to be the best, but the time spent plying the route did reveal a
fair bit about each vehicle’s character; there was some hard driving
done briefly on each later, which revealed yet more, but given that 99%
of these SUVs owners aren’t likely to subject their rides to such, most
of the basis – for me at least – was from that gleaned waltzing along.
The Tucson was my first ride out, and as before, when I drove it at
point of launch, the 2.0 litre Theta II mill proved willing to get
things moving. It feels perky from the get-go, buoyant in its character;
conversely, it feels that bit less refined when pushed, and can be a
bit zingy at the top end. As a cruiser the Tucson does well enough,
though there is a fair amount of road noise, and the steering needs a
bit of corrective input in terms of straight-line retention, but the
light, easy feel of the rack makes it simple on the shoulders.
The plastics notwithstanding, the itemisation of the layout and
switchgear operation in the Hyundai is pretty much fuss-free. One minus
is the lack of reach adjustment for the steering, something that is also
an oversight on the X-Trail and ASX. Seat comfort is decent, though not
group-leading.
As a driver’s car, or crossover, if you prefer, the ASX is by far the
leader of the assembled five-pack. The level of steering feel and
communication is by far the highest of the lot, as is the vehicle’s
response to dramatic changing load/direction. Agile, in a flamboyant
manner, the main reason why you’d want one is because you love to drive,
with everything else secondary.
Meanwhile, the 3008 drove well, and the turbocharged Prince 1.6 mill
chugged along with the least amount of strain of all the engines
throughout the drive. It felt like it was consuming the most fuel, based
on the onboard readout, but this proved to be deceptive (see fuel
consumption section below). In-cabin comfort is high, and the plushness
of the interior, despite that pinched feeling, makes doing the miles all
that bit easier.
Still, its size means that it is at a slight disadvantage compared to
the rest of the crowd here, the ASX notwithstanding. I still don’t
think it’s a SUV, which it was tagged when it was launched. A good
compact-ish crossover for the young urban family, yes. Super utility
people mover, er, no. Drives well though, so it gets brownie points
here.
From an interior perspective, the Nissan simply overwhelms the rest.
The rather-too-soft driver seat aside, everything about the X-Trail
screams functionality. It isn’t the fastest, nor the most agile, nor
does it have the sense of presence or grandeur. But there’s acres of
space in that cavernous cabin, and something about it works, at least to
me – I found myself liking it more with every passing mile.
Easy to drive, there’s nothing imposing in its character; it’s
vanilla, really – you get in, turn the key and get to your intended
destination without fuss, fanfare or any sort of emotion, for that
matter. All that functionality, dished out in a completely neutral
manner. It isn’t as bad as it sounds, actually.
Finally, we come to the CR-V. I spent the least amount of time in it
during the test session, but driving it regularly keeps reminding me why
so many view it as the de facto choice in this market when it comes to
putting their money on the table for a mid-price, mid-size SUV.
Yes, the 2.0 litre block can feel slightly underpowered at the lower
end pushing that mass (it felt the laziest of the lot in start-offs).
The steering is also on the heavier side of things, and needs quite a
bit of corrective input during highway driving.
But in every other sense, the Honda gets it right. From the tactility
of the switchgear operation (which makes all the others, save the 3008,
feel cheap) to the interior presentation levels, the CR-V feels good to
the touch and sight. It is agile enough when asked, and balanced would
best describe its overall level of driving engagement. In all, it feels
well thought out, the type of product that you know a copious amount of
time has been spent refining all the key points. In this regard, it’s an
absolute toss-up between the neutral functionality of the X-Trail and
the refined, cultured presentation of the CR-V.
FUEL CONSUMPTION
During the group test drive, we travelled 412 km from the Klang
Valley to Ipoh, and back. It included stop and go traffic, town driving
and, of course, highway cruising along the PLUS Expressway.
The route we selected allowed us to test the cars in various road
conditions where we spent quite a bit of our time on the highway. During
the test drive we also carried out a fuel test for all the SUVs
involved, with measures employed to ensure accuracy such as adhering to
the 110 km/h national speed limit, keeping a safe distance between the
cars, ensuring that all cars are driven by all test drivers (to make
sure all SUVs get a consistent driving pattern overall) and so on.
Here are the final results:
Peugeot 3008 (1.6 litre Turbo) – 7.37 litres / 100 km
Mitsubishi ASX (2.0 litre NA) – 7.5 litres / 100 km
Honda CR-V (2.0 litre NA) – 8.3 litres / 100 km
Nissan X-Trail (2.0 litre NA) – 8.6 litres / 100 km
Hyundai Tucson (2.0 litre NA) – 8.7 litres / 100 km
The 3008 took the top honours, with the ASX following closely behind.
These were the only two which breached the 8.0 litre per 100 km mark
following the test, and the 3008’s lower displacement (and turbocharger)
1.6 liter engine likely has contributed to its number one spot here.
It’s also interesting to note that the ASX, which uses a
normally-aspirated 2.0 litre engine, achieved 7.5 litres per 100 km,
just 0.13 litres behind the 3008, which makes it the most fuel efficient
vehicle among its 2.0 litre competitors and it is also very comparable
to the Pug.
We reckon that the ASX achieved almost similar numbers due to its
engine tune, its MIVEC (or Mitsubishi Innovative Valve timing Electronic
Control system) calibration and of course its transmission tune. The
engine also utilises a lightweight aluminium block which helps the ASX
achieve positive such results. We must also take the vehicle kerb weight
into account. It appears that the ASX is lighter than the 3008, with a
kerb weight of 1,375 kg. Its French rival is 1,450 kg in comparison.
CONCLUSION
Danny says
Big or small, boxy or curvy, there’s an SUV for every one. No lemons
here, just entries that excel in various areas. At the end of the day,
it depends on what you want out of an SUV, whether as a great family
wagon (Nissan fits the bill, Peugeot is out), a personal urban mobile
(Peugeot and Mitsu are compact enough and drive well) or great value and
bold design (Hyundai).
I love to drive, but I also view the SUV as a family car, which means
that practicality and comfort are high in the list. The Honda CR-V is a
good all-rounder, but I like the honest, self-confident X-Trail. The
Nissan is comfortable in its own skin, and will make you feel as
comfortable, too. As for those itchy moments, I’ll buy a cheap fun car.
Harvinder says
Overall, there’s no obvious winner here – all the SUVs here
definitely pass the minimum requirement, so it’s a matter of personal
choice. You should also look at other factors such as safety features
and pricing. The 3008 comes with a 5-star Euro NCAP rating which is made
up by 6-airbags, ESP and ISOFIX points, among others. It retails for
RM146,888 (all prices here are OTR including insurance).
The Tucson on the other hand has two airbags and ESP and it retails
at RM139,888 for the 2.0 litre High Spec. The ASX is also fitted with
dual airbags and ESP (or ASC, as Mitsubishi calls it). Also in the list
is Hill Start Assist. The ASX goes for RM139,980, which is similar to
the Tucson. The CR-V also comes with dual airbags and ESP (or VSA) and
it goes for RM149,980.
Finally, the X-Trail, which goes for RM149,500; it comes with, yes,
you guessed it right, dual airbags but without ESP, which is interesting
to note. It only has ABS with EBD and BA. That’s a bit of a downside,
given a price tag that’s a shade off being the most expensive of the
lot. To me, the fight would go down between the Mitsubishi ASX and the
Peugeot 3008, if I were shopping for an SUV.
Anthony says
There wasn’t a runaway pick of the heap, not where I’m concerned;
it’s nice to see how close things have gotten in the segment that there
wasn’t one dominant player. The ASX is my weapon of choice from a
driving perspective – the CVT aside, it is engaging, to say the least.
But that’s never the only reason why one buys a vehicle in this segment.
and its size means that those shopping for a full-fledged SUV may find
this crossover too small for their needs.
The same goes for the 3008. Pluses are a highly refined interior and
tractable, crowd-pleasing mill, but its lack of heft may preclude it as a
straight choice to most. Its appeal lies with those who find the allure
of a Continental offering winsome, and provides those seeking an
alternative to the predominantly Japanese/Korean crowd a perfect option.
A small family (quite literally, for rear occupants!) is also a
prerequisite.
The Tucson shows how much the Koreans have closed the gap, but still,
haven’t quite gotten the cigar – there are key areas in which its lack
of absolute refinement shows it up (it’d have been very interesting
pitting the plusher Sportage cousin into the mix against the Japanese
competition). Still, the external shape is light years ahead of the
previous one, and its main point is that it now offers a serious
contender as an alternative if you don’t want to go with a Jap offering,
and think a Pug is too much work.
In the end, from the assembled crew, I’d take my pick from the
X-Trail and CR-V. I didn’t expect the X-Trail to figure as highly as it
did – looks truly can be deceiving. I liked its honesty; it doesn’t
paint anything more into the picture than it should, and it goes about
everything in such clean, unfettered fashion there is much to like about
it and its character.
As for the CR-V, well, its strength is in its overall presentation
and coherency – here, it never led in any particular aspect, but scored
high and kept pace with its overall level of refinement and, most
importantly, its consistency in delivery across the board. A large
number of buyers have likely found that very essence – and composition –
appealing, given the numbers shifted through the years. With this
household being one of these, I’m not inclined to disagree with the
collective, that plying the safe, consistent route is not such a bad
thing. The tick goes in this box for me then in this particular
five-way.
